GOVERNMEN 

AN INQUIRY INTO 

The Nature and Fiindions oi the State; 

DISCLOSING GENERAL PRINCIPLES INVOLVED 

IN qurstions of 

Taxation, 

Money. 

Labor and Capital, 

Land Tenure, 

Corporate Privilege, 

The Tariff, Et Cetera; 

ALSO SHOWING 

THE RELATION OF CIVIL POWER TO MORAL AND 
SOCIAL PROGRESS. 


JOHN S. CROSBY. 


PUBLISHED BY 

MAILMAN PRINTING COMPANY, 

. KANSAS CITY, MO. 



‘ ■■ --,- •'■ ' -' ■ ^'•'' ■'■ ■' ■- 7 .. ' ■ '■ '“ '■ 

- ' - .'- • ' • -^- ■ ' . . •' . ,/' .'',•* -• 'ir^ i ^’< 


_ / 


,/ , 


\ k. 




-i*' 




vrs-; 

•» >.’ 


JL-* ■ • 




■?.',••• 


J .r"' ‘ 




:w' 


• V •. 




•i ' 

- 7 " 


' VC< 












' 0 "' '•-' '' 

. '■/:r 


r 


- * _ '**3 

* 






- . 

:^'■ 

-' --y -I-- r 

r ^ 'V • '■ 






‘■N « 


.X' 








V 








y 


ij. 






-ft 


♦<' /■ 




















*.,. rt -- 


V /* 




W- 

V -. - * 








:X'r_r 




y- 




J ( 


r^-'*Irrr 


^ • V. • *- 




rh- 




f. - f. 




v: y' 


'K 


[A 


, < 


•Ji- 


; - ' 




't '-V; 


f >■ 

'W.U 


•* ': . ^• ^ 




^ ~75 ■^•:“T - V 


-* V- 




iy. 




•■< 




v^r 




C 


w. 


•J.- y 
. V. v» 




V 


r <: 


:(' SC. 


/■Si 




'^\S» 








• '? 


.. * 


4' /N ?;• 

•4.- >* .-.-5 




tr^’ 

•--M 












fK 


r-v 




A-?*. 




•jg 















1 

r 





■k 


V « 


:V 

\S 

> 





•> 

i 




I 
























->^:?vV x-:-' ■- -..:..--v . >>K^•^V ■ 

;c-. -s,- ■ ■ ^ , * - - *.. -r ...'7 ' .. 




■ ■ ■ 




S^’^? 5 y.v,; ■ '. ■'•-‘'■^ * - • 

r«t' si'-.- » • - • • -. p., - •■ 4 - . j _ 


V V 






t :. 






>t'''• ,* r-V'*' 




r *• - 


-v/x V -. , 

c.-' •• .' 

,T... •':- 


‘Tt^ir^^;v''-^;■ ' ' V* -T ..-^ 












•' ■ : ■ - - ‘ "■ bi • J 

'■ '■ 

■' ^ ■ • - V' . ’r,.'. 

«• . X . >•;* V-" .. ' • - .1 - - . 




-v' ' 


\ ■■ 


‘■■jr.,x : . 5 "- .a, 

r** 7*< . . -V. --,7 ■ •- 

fc'-' • .•* ’ * - --. . .. . .“ * L ' * ’ ^~’ Ji^ ■*• 

-V'.A' 7 ' :,i .* "H*>. 




t, * 7 -'' X ^ *'', 

^'Sv; ,V. ,► • “-^• 


^VP-" • 


r •• 


► r • . ^ ,u V- ► 

r.£i x T.v ■^"^- 


.■> 


■ —■ 'i' .’ '^' “ ■ '* - - “v.- r ' ;• ' ^ 







- * .4 




* -'V' . 

,- - , . if •^. . 

* /. •-C**’ •* -a* • *■ 

•%. / • . 


i-’Jv 


, r*-x- T^ : '■ 'S' - X-*.»''. 

-.V ' ''^' “■■'■=^ 

^ ^ -' • * » 4 


■- _ ' "V 


s 

•y 

V 


•-' in ,- . ^ . - *v. - 

I-• ■ - 






■■•V ^ ' 


^ -* *> 
f 



^ • -w^ ^ 

♦ • 




< 

V, > 


X ' 




v > V- - 


S'’* ‘ - . •" . ^ 






i*v 70 


- 04 


7 ■ »> v ' •• 7, ^ -. . ,♦ 

^'v' 7 -a-^ / ' 


% • 


A i 

f. < 


4" 


' i’* 



.- \ * 


t .. “ 
»' 





< 

V A 


> O 

Si 




;' 7 ' 


X . 


v' . 


^ -^1 




N *.•• # 


.“» % 


. I 7 r-. 

• >s 7 * • ' *. V 


X'.'*** -■/■'^ - - -T^* - ‘ '^'' 4 - 5u^P' * ^ - *"‘‘* ' .-- 

^ "1 ‘ . 4 r: ^ HP \ ^ • ... • >. ' - ■ . 



- ■ 7 

-'f‘: • 


/ •; 


Tr 




• 4 


•. A 


V .r, • 


, ^ » 


V .■- 

... 

- S*VS. ^4?“. • i • 


- S^. 

- •* ' • 






._■ o-'h 7 ,a^‘: 


■ -a -' .-.. ,• 


• r/ • -y. 


'■ = 





ii»5*yar?- Ji 



Y • %.‘ ' * a r‘ V. 

.' .-"X.; V<: 


PREFACE. 


If it be true that what ’s everybody’s business 
is nobody^s, this little book will not be read by any¬ 
body. It treats of questions which are of vital im¬ 
portance to every man and woman, and for whose 
settlement everyone, to the extent of his ability 
and possible influence, is responsible not only to 
the State but also to his fellow men and to God. 

Wisdom and power have been styled the at¬ 
tributes of sovereignty, but a little wisdom will go 
a great way, provided there be sufficient power. 
The doctrine of the divine right of kings was not 
more dangerous to liberty than is the idea that ma¬ 
jorities are necessarily or even generally right. 
It is becoming a serious question whether the 
American people are wise enough to make a just 
use of civil power. Governments do not derive 
their just powers from the consent of the governed, 
nor is the greatest good of the greatest number 
ever of itself alone a sufficient warrant for the ex¬ 
ercise of civil power. The yet undeveloped sci¬ 
ence of government will involve a science of rights 
yet to be formulated. In the absence of those 


sciences political reform must continue to be more 
or less experimental, but correct principles of gov¬ 
ernment should be followed as far as discovered, 
and no effort should be spared to make them known 
and understood by the masses of the people who are 
entrusted with all the power and charged with all 
the responsibilities of absolute sovereignty. 


‘^To understand political power aright and 
derive it from its original, we must consider what 
estate all men are naturally in, and that is a state 
of perfect freedom to order their actions and dis¬ 
pose of their possessions and persons as they think 
fit within the bounds of the law of nature, without 
asking leave or depending upon the will of any 
other man.’’— Locke, 

“ It [the law of nature] is binding over all the 
globe, in all countries, and at all times; no human 
laws are of any validity if contrary to this.”— 
Blackstone, 

‘‘Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond 
right.’’— Locke. 



■ ■ 

CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER I. 

The State Distinguished from Society.—Its Organization not 
the Result of “Social Contract,’’ but of Compulsion War¬ 
ranted only by Necessity.—Its Functions Classified. 9 

CHAPTER II. 

Amplification of theFunctions of Government.—Natural Inalien- 

aDle Rights.—The Slate Should Mind its Own Business.. 24 

CHAPTER III. 

The Functions of Government a Guide to Legislative Reform; 
Considerations of S>mpathy, Morality and Religion.—The 
Composite Right to Labor... 39 

CHAPTER IV. 

The Right to Land Inalienable.—Land Not Property.—A Just 

.System of Land Tenure and of Taxation. 52 

CHAPTER V. 

Freedom of Contract.—Natural Competition.—Persons Natural 
and Artificial.—Corporate Privilege.—Trusts.—Civic Cor¬ 
ruption. .. y2 

CHAPTER VI. 

A Legal Tender Currency Should be Pure Money Issued by the 
Government Only.—What is Pure Money?. 87 

CHAPTER VII. 

The Scientific Method Applicable to the Solution of All Gov¬ 
ernment Problems.—The Tariff.—Woman Suffrage, et 
cetera. 


lOI 









GOVERNMENT. 


CHAPTER I. 

THE STATE DISTINGUISHED FROM SOCIETY.-ITS OR¬ 

GANIZATION NOT THE RESULT OF “SOCIAL CON¬ 
TRACT,’’ BUT OF COMPULSION WARRANTED ONLY 
BY NECESSITY.-ITS FUNCTIONS CLASSIFIED. 

Responsibility of the citizen for popular gov¬ 
ernment depends not more upon the casting of a 
ballot than upon his influence in forming public 
opinion. Whether that influence shall be for just 
or unjust government will depend not more upon 
his integrity of purpose than upon his conception 
of the nature and functions of the State. 

It is the purpose of the following pages to dis¬ 
cover, if possible^ the true and sufficient raison 
d'etre of government, by what just warrant or au¬ 
thority, if any, it is established and maintained, 

-9 



10 


GOVERNMENT. 


what its legitimate functions are, and how and to 
what extent a knowledge of those functions may 
aid in advancing political reform and in solving in 
dustrial, social and so-called government problems. 

What is civil government? Under whatever 
form it may appear it always makes itself manifest 
through the exercise of human power organized 
for and directed to the control of conduct. Power 
is its essential element, but good government con¬ 
sists in the just and efficient maintenance and use 
of civil power. 

Born into government and ever surrounded by 
its all-pervading influence, man is prone to regard 
its power as no less natural than the forces of in¬ 
animate nature, and to make use of it as he does of 
them for any and all purposes to whose accomplish¬ 
ment it may seem adapted; or he confounds the 
State with society, not realizing that while the lat¬ 
ter is a natural organism subject to the universal 
law of evolution, the former is an artificial mechan¬ 
ism constructed by man for the accomplishment of 
definite ends. Government, the State, is often 
spoken of as ‘‘society in its corporate capacity,” 
but it is in no proper sense identical with society, 
nor is its action ever the action of society. The 
State indeed comprises the same individuals as those 
composing society; it is a body corporate, organized 


GOVE^RNIMENT. 


11 


by certain members of society who compel the rest 
to co-operate with them for the maintenance of the 
organization; all are compelled to become share¬ 
holders and to submit to assessments; those, as it 
were, controlling a majority of the stock, choose 
directors who control the affairs of the concern. 
But the action of the governing board is never the 
unanimous, voluntary action of all the members of 
society, nor of the State, who have never unan¬ 
imously agreed to be governed in the least by the 
will of a majority, and many of whom submit only 
because compelled. This compulsory organization 
to whose maintenance each and all are forced to 
contribute, must, if entitled to support, have for its 
legitimate end some purpose justly warranting its 
compulsory establishment rather than any and 
every purpose to which the power it acquires may 
be directed. 

What is this legitimate purpose of. govern¬ 
ment, its primary object, that end which is so ne¬ 
cessary that all persons may be justly compelled to 
unite and co-operate for its accomplishment? As 
affecting any one man the strongest possible gov¬ 
ernment would be that of all other men combining 
to use their power for his control, while the weak¬ 
est government would be that of some other one 
man who should alone control him. Two persons 


(GOVERNMENT. 


ii 

at least are necessary to government, one to goveril 
an(i one to be governeci. 

Beginning, then, with the simplest possible 
government, that which one man having the power 
might exercise over another, when wouM the use 
of that power by the one to control the conduct of 
the other be justly warranted? The mere fact that 
one had the power to control the other could not 
give him the right, otherwise a slight change in the 
physical condition of either or in the circumstances 
surrounding them might give to him that had been 
the weaker the power, and so with it the right to 
control the other. Might cannot make right. No 
argument 'is needed to convince the just mind that 
of two men alone upon the earth one would have 
no right to attempt to control or interfere with the 
conduct of the other, except in self-defense ; that 
is, in protecting himself in the enjoyment of some 
natural right. The mere fact that one deemed the 
conduct of the other morally wrong could give the 
former no right to forcibly prevent or interfere 
with it, since the latter might no less honestly and 
perhaps with equal reason believe his conduct to be 
right, and in case of difference the stronger would 
prevail, leaving the wrong triumphant as often as 
the right; and, moreover, the latter might in any 
case well say to the former, ‘ ‘ If God and nature 


GOVERNMENT. 13 

give me the liberty to conduct myself as I please, 
what right have you to prevent me so long as I do 
not interfere with you?” Self-defense has been 
called the first law of nature, and indeed it is the 
only natural law authorizing one man or many men 
to forcibly restrain another. 

If, then, of two men one would have no right 
to coerce the other except in self-defense, when 
would any two of three men have a right to coerce 
or control the third? If when there were only the 
first and second, the latter had no right to coerce 
the former, what greater right would he have sim¬ 
ply on account of the presence of the third? So 
long as the first interfered with no right of either 
the second or the third they would neither of them 
have any right to coerce him, and if neither had 
such right they could not both together have it, 
for twice no right would be no right still. Let the 
number of men be increased to tens, hundreds or 
thousands, and still so long as the first interfered 
.with no right of any one of them no one of them 
would have any right to coerce him or control his 
conduct, and so long as no one of them had such 
right they could not all together have it. A mil¬ 
lion times zero is zero still. The right, then, of any 
man or of any number of men to interfere with or 
control the conduct of other men depends upon and 


GOVERNMENT. 


14 

consists in the right of self-defense alone and may 
be exercised by one over many as justly as by them 
over him. 

But although each man has a right to defend 
himself against wrong from others, no man has the 
right to compel another to aid in such defense, for 
the latter may in the exercise of his own right of 
self-defense consult his own interest and safety and 
decline to render such aid. The idea is not un¬ 
common, because the State compels all to co-oper¬ 
ate for the protection of each and all, that there is 
some natural obligation binding the community to 
protect the rights of individuals, that society is na¬ 
turally responsiblccfor the welfare and safety of its 
members. There is no such natural obligation 
or responsibility. Any number of men may if they 
choose voluntarily unite for the purpose of protect¬ 
ing themselves from wrong, but they have no right 
to compel others to aid in the accomplishment of 
such purpose, nor would such association consti¬ 
tute civil government which consists in the com¬ 
pulsory organization of the entire community into 
what is termed the State. The desire of never so 
great a majority to protect themselves and those 
naturally dependent upon them from wrong by in¬ 
dividuals would never of itself warrant such com¬ 
pulsory organization, since the individuals of a 


GOVERNMENT. 


15 

peaceable and well-intentioned minority might pre¬ 
fer to make each his own unaided, independent de¬ 
fense rather than incur the responsibility and dan¬ 
ger of aiding in the defense of others. 

There must then be some other object than the 
protection of individuals from the fraud or intention¬ 
al violence of others to justly warrant that interfer¬ 
ence with personal liberty and restraint of the free 
exercise of the right of self-defense necessary to 
the institution and maintenance of civil government 
and the State, Attempt has been made to justify 
such interference and restraint by the fiction of a 
‘^social contract/’ whereby it is assumed that so¬ 
ciety has surrendered certain natural rights in ex¬ 
change for the advantages of government, a conceit 
too fanciful for serious consideration. If such a 
contract were conceivable^ it would have to be 
constantly renewed^ for it could have no binding 
force upon men born after it was made and not 
voluntary parties to it. 

In order to discover what necessity there is 
for this compulsory organization, what constitutes 
the primary object of civil government justly war¬ 
ranting the maintenance of the State and the exer¬ 
cise of its power, conceive of a community having 
no such organization, no form of government, the 
members of which depend each upon himself and 


i6 GOVERNMENT, 

the voluntary assistance of others for whatever pro¬ 
tection may be necessary to the enjoyment of 
natural rights. In such a community whenever a 
difference should arise between individuals its set¬ 
tlement would be left to the parties personally in¬ 
terested. If any induced by sym,pathy, hire or 
other motive, should lend their aid to either side in 
the controversy, their action would be voluntary 
and not under the compulsion or direction of the 
State; nor, as already seen, would the mere fact 
that one or more were suffering wrong at the hands 
of others warrant even the largest majority in com¬ 
pelling the smallest minority to aid in preventing 
such wrong. 

It would, however, sooner or later become ap¬ 
parent that the unrestrained exercise of the right of 
self-defense by individuals was incompatible with 
the enjoyment of life and happiness, of natural 
rights, by any of the community. Even those so 
peaceably disposed and well-intentioned as never 
to have a personal difference, so averse to strife as 
to suffer wrong rather than create disturbance, 
would soon find their peace destroyed and their 
property and lives endangered by the contention of 
strangers. Disputes between individuals would so 
multiply, continue and extend, involving families, 
friends, neighbors and neighborhoods in the result- 


GOVERNMENT. 


17 


ing Strife, that tumult and riot would overwhelm even 
those that had no personal enemies, and whom no 
one desired or intended to harm, molest or disturb. 
No man could leave his home or place of business 
with any assurance that his family or property 
would escape the accidental violence and injury re¬ 
sulting from feuds in which he had no personal in¬ 
terest. Nor could individuals, however able to de¬ 
fend themselves from the fraud or violence of other 
individuals, successfully contend against the blind 
and furious violence of contending factions. The 
individual right of self-defense would be inadequate 
to the protection of property and life against its own 
unrestrained, unregulated exercise. 

Then would a majority in power if not in num¬ 
ber organize, not for the purpose of protecting in¬ 
dividuals from the intentional fraud or violence of 
other individuals, but to prevent that disturbance 
and destruction of the public peace and order in¬ 
evitably arising from the free and unlimited exer¬ 
cise of the right of self-defense by individuals. The 
right to organize for such purpose would depend, 
not upon the number of those undertaking to do so, 
but upon the necessity for such action. The larg¬ 
est majority might oppose any form of, or any at¬ 
tempt at government, preferring to live in anarchy, 
rmd y^t the smallest minority would be justified in 


i8 GOVERNMENT. 

maintaining the public peace and order, if they 
were able to do so, for they would be acting merely 
in self-defense. A majority would be essential only 
in order to insure the necessary power. 

The preservation of the peace being the ob¬ 
ject of the organization, it would forbid whatever 
tended to disturb the peace, including all such ex¬ 
ercise of the right of self-defense as had that ten¬ 
dency. The warrant for such interference with the 
right of self-defense is founded on the very right 
itself. Although the individual has the right to 
protect himself, his family and property, he has no 
right in so doing to injure or disturb his innocent 
neighbors; they, by virtue of their right of self-de¬ 
fense, may justly prevent his so injuring or disturb¬ 
ing them, and to that end may command and com¬ 
pel him and all persons to keep the peace and to 
forgo the exercise of the right of self-defense, if 
necessary, to the preservation of the peace. 

In order, however, that the command to keep 
the peace may be the more promptly and certainly 
obeyed, and that no injustice may be done to any 
by its enforcement, it becomes necessary that such 
as in obedience to it refrain from exercising the 
right, shall be provided with as sure and ample pro¬ 
tection as they might provide for themselves byMts 
exercise; and since it is impossible to know how 


GOVERNMENT. 


19 

complete a defense anyone might make for himself 
but for the interference of government, it devolves 
upon those commanding the peace to provide the 
fullest possible defense and protection in every 
case in which the individual is forbidden to provide 
it for himself. Hence arises the obligation of 
the government to secure to individuals the en¬ 
joyment of natural rights, of life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness, not from any natural obliga¬ 
tion of society to the individual, nor from any nat¬ 
ural right of the individual to demand such security 
from society, but because the organization known 
as the State, in order to preserve the peace, deprives 
ihe individual of the free exercise of his natural 
right to protect himself, and thereby obligates It¬ 
self to protect him. 

In order, moreover, that it may succeed in its 
attempt to preserve the peace and secure natural 
rights the State must undertake and carry on all 
such enterprises, if any, as are necessary to that 
end, but by reason of their nature or extent exceed 
the compass of unaided individual ability or private 
effort. 

And further, to insure the accomplishment of 
its primary object, the preservation of the peace, 
and the efficient discharge of obligations incident 
thereto,namely, to secure natural rights and carry on 


20 GOVERNMENT. 

such necessary enterprises as can not be conducted - 
without its aid, it becomes necessary for the State 
to compel all persons to contribute to its support, 
which, as already seen, it could not justly do, if its 
primary and only object were the protection of in¬ 
dividual rights. It undertakes such protection and 
the carrying on of public enterprises simply be¬ 
cause necessary to effect its primary object of 
maintaining the public peace and order. It cannot, 
however^ be sure, as it must and ought to be, of 
accomplishing all these ends at all times and under 
all circumstances, unless it has supreme power. It 
must of necessity be at all times stronger than any 
and all powers with which it may have to contend. 

To insure this supremacy it must compel the recogni¬ 
tion, support and co-operation of all persons with¬ 
in its jurisdiction. It cannot be too strong, for it 
is impossible to foretell what demands may be 
made upon its power. If any were permitted to 
stand aloof and independent, the government 
would be that much the weaker, so much the less 
able to compel prompt obedience to its commands. 

Thus does each individual member of society ^ 
become a member of the body corporate known as 
th^ State, not as the result of any natural law nor 
by reason of the voluntary agreement of all, but 
under compulsion of those promoting the organi- 



GOVERNMENT. 


21 


zation, in which, however, each member has equal 
rights and for the administration of whose affairs 
each is to the extent of kis influence equally re¬ 
sponsible. 

From the foregoing hasty outline may be 
gathered the basic facts and fundamental principles 
from which a science of government may eventu¬ 
ally be developed. There is no such science as 
yet, for while the other useful arts have for, the 
most part advanced to the scientific stage, that of 
government still lingers in the experimental. The 
reason is that in the other arts discovery and inven¬ 
tion have been encouraged and stimulated by the 
ptospect of profit and honor, while obloquy and 
death have been the reward of such as presumed to 
suggest a change in government, however desirable, 
or even to criticise the existing order. But although 
there be no science of government there is no good 
reason why the scientific method now so univers¬ 
ally followed in other investigations should not, if 
possible, be applied to the study of government, 
nor why regard should not be had to axioms as 
well as maxims, to principle as well as precedent, in^ 
attempting to solve its so-called problems, many 
of which will prove simple indeed when the nature, 
reason and legitimate purposes of the State and 


22 GOVERNMENT. 

the obligations and limitations of civil power are 
clearly and correctly understood. 

The evils, if any there be, for which govern¬ 
ment is responsible arise in every instance from its 
sins of omission or of commission, from its neglect¬ 
ing to do something that it ought to do, or from its 
doing something that it ought not to do. When 
once it is clearly understood what government 
ought to do, just what its legitimate functions are, it 
will be easy to decide what it ought not to do, for 
its action should be limited strictly to the discharge 
of its legitimate functions, any other use being an 
abuse of its power. 

From what has been shown it will be seen that 
civil power may be legitimately used for any one 
or more of the following purposes only: 

First. —For the preservation of the govern¬ 
ment itself and the maintenance of its supremacy 
and sovereign power^ which may be termed the 
self-preserving function of government. 

Second.— For the preservation of the peace 
and public order, which may be termed its peace¬ 
preserving function. 

Third.— For securing to each and every per¬ 
son within its jurisdiction the equal enjoyment o*^ 
natural, inalienable rights, which may be termed 
its right-preserving function. 


GOVERNMENT. 


23 

Fourth. —For the accomplishment of such un¬ 
dertakings and the performing of such services, if 
any there be, as are necessary to the preservation 
of the peace or the security of natural rights but, by 
reason of their nature or extent, can not be carried 
on by private individual or partnership enterprise 
without the aid of government, which may be 
termed its public-serving function. 

The exercise of civil power should be limited 
strictly to performing these four functions, and 
government may abuse its power by failing to fully 
and efficiently discharge some one or more of them^ 
or by using it for some other purpose or by lend¬ 
ing it for any purpose. 


24 


government. 


CHAFER 11. 

AMPLIFICATION OF THE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT. 

-NATURAL INALIENABLE RIGHTS.-THE STATE 

SHOULD MIND ITS OWN BUSINESS. 

The first, iDr self-preserving function of gov¬ 
ernment includes whatever must be done to estab¬ 
lish and maintain power necessary to the efficient 
discharge of its other functions. This power, as 
already seen, can not be too great, but justice de¬ 
mands that the expense and burden of its mainten¬ 
ance shall be as light as possible and equitably ap¬ 
portioned among the people. 

Since the service to be rendered by the State 
is for the equal and common benefit of all, justice 
demands that the expense incident to such service 
should be shared equally by all. Persons without 
means, however, of whom there are too many in 
every state, seem unable to contribute their share, 
and taxes are therefore for the most part levied 
upon property, either directly upon what men save 
or indirectly upon what they spend. It is ar¬ 
gued in justification of this method of taxation 


GOVERNMENT. 


25 


for public expenses, that the owners of prop¬ 
erty are especially indebted to the State for the 
protection afforded their property, and that each 
should, therefore, pay in proportion to what he 
owns. The argument is without foundation in 
reason or fact. Thrifty and economical owners of 
property are, as a class, less trouble and expense 
to the State than persons without property; they 
are conservators of the peace, ’ and protection 
should be given to their property because justly 
due in return for their foregoing and surrendering 
to the State the exercise C)f the natural right to pro¬ 
tect it themselves. Each member of the body cor- 
, porate known as the State should contribute equally 
to its support; and there is no reason why it should 
collect more from one man than from another, un¬ 
less in payment for some advantage which it enables 
him to enjoy above others, the value of which he 
should then pay into a public fund for the common 
benefit of all. Such payment, however, would not 
be primarily of the nature of a tax, since it ought to 
be made even if there were no public expenses and 
no need of taxation, in which case such fund should 
be divided equally among all the individuals com¬ 
posing the State. But since there are public ex¬ 
penses which ought to be borne equally by each 
and all, if there be such a fund in which each and 


26 


GOVERNMENT. 


all have an equal interest, common business sense 
would suggest the application of it to the payment 
of such expenses, and that other taxation should 
not be resorted to until that fund was exhausted; if 
it should prove sufficient to cover all public expen¬ 
ses and be used for that purpose, they would then 
be shared equally by all since paid out of a fund 
belonging equally to all. That such fund exists 
and should be collected by the State and applied 
to such purpose, thereby doing away with all ne¬ 
cessity or excuse for prevailing systems of taxa¬ 
tion, will appear later upon inquiring into laws re¬ 
lating to land, labor and property. It is in the ex¬ 
ercise of this, its first function, also that the State 
protects itself by diplomacy or war against the in¬ 
vasions or encroachments of other governments, 
wherein appears clearly the necessity of compelling 
all persons within its jurisdiction to unite and co¬ 
operate for its support and defense. 

In the exercise of the same function the gov¬ 
ernment suppresses rebellion and prevents seces¬ 
sion as alike incompatible with the maintenance of 
its supreme power. The real, issue in the late civil 
war in the United States was whether or not the 
national government was supreme. In that war 
was demonstrated and established the principle 
equally dear to the North and to the South, that 


GOVERNMENT. 


27 

the government must be stronger than any power 
or powers within it, a demonstration as invaluable 
to the country and its government, as was the blood 
of the brave men that on either side of that mo¬ 
mentous issue took part in finally establishing that 
great fundamental principle. There can be but 
one government, one supreme power existing at 
the same time in any one place, and self-preserva¬ 
tion is the first law of its being as of every other. 

It is in discharge of this function,.moreover, 
that the State is warranted, if at all, in undertaking 
to secure the education of all persons within its 
jurisdiction, not because it is under any obligation 
to provide instruction for anybody, but because its 
own safety depends upon popular intelligence in 
regard to matters of government, intelligent citi¬ 
zens being at all times as necessary as are trained 
soldiers in time of war. 

The second, or.peace-preserving function of 
government includes all such exercise of its power 
as is directed immediately and solely to the preser¬ 
vation of the peace and public order, for although 
every act of government has that for its ultimate 
object it is well for purposes of analysis and classi¬ 
fication to distinguish between acts having that ob 
ject only and acts which^ in addition to that, their 
remote object, have for their direct and immediate 


28 


GOVERNMENT. 


purpose the accomplishment of something interme¬ 
diate but legitimate, because necessary to the pres¬ 
ervation of the peace, the former class of acts be¬ 
longing to the peace-preserving function, and the 
latter to either the third or fourth function accord¬ 
ing as they have for their direct and immediate 
object the preservation of some natural right or the 
carrying on of some necessary public service. 

The peace-preserving function is exercised 
chiefly in prohibiting and preventing conduct viTich 
might be unobjectionable but for its tendency to 
disturb the peace. It is by virtue of this function 
that government interferes with the natural right of 
self-defense and forbids its forcible, peace-disturb¬ 
ing exercise whenever adequate protection can be 
by the State substituted and provided for the per¬ 
son foregoing such exercise. For instance, if 
property be stolen or unjustly detained, or prem¬ 
ises unjustly occupied, the person injured has an 
undoubted natural right to use force if necessary 
in retaking such property or possession of such 
premises, but the State for the sake of peace and 
public order prohibits the use of force for such 
purpose and subjects whoever uses it to penalties 
which it imposes in the discharge of its peace-pre¬ 
serving- function. In order, however, to insure the 
more prompt and willing obedience to its com- 


GOVERNMENT. 


29 

mand, as well as in justice to him that obeys it, the 
government provides for the righting of the wrong 
by peaceably restoring the property or possession 
of the premises, thereby exercising its third, or 
right-preserving function. 

The exercise of the peace-preserving function 
is directed largely against conduct commonly char¬ 
acterized as taking the law into one’s own hands. 
It is exercised in preventing language that, although 
expressing not unmerited censure, would disturb 
the public peace, and also mutual combat indul¬ 
gence in which might be nobody’s business but the 
combatants’, except for its peace-disturbing ten¬ 
dency. 

The third, or right preserving function of gov¬ 
ernment is by far the most comprehensive and com¬ 
plicated of all, and includes whatever is necessary 
to be done in order to protect man in the enjoy¬ 
ment of his natural, inalienable rights, and to make 
them secure in the case of every man and every 
right from the fraud or violence of other men. The 
ultimate object of this function as of the others is, 
as already seen, the preservation of the public peace 
and order, but so necessary to that end is the ac¬ 
complishment of the direct and immediate object 
of securing natural rights that the latter has often 
been mistaken for the primary end, authorizing 


GOVERNMENT. 


30 

motive and necessary cause of government. And 
although a secondary object in that it becomes 
legitimate only because necessary to the preserva¬ 
tion of the peace which constitutes the sole war¬ 
rant for the establishment of civil power, neverthe¬ 
less the protection of man in the enjoyment of 
natural rights is so absolutely necessary to perma¬ 
nent preservation of the peace, to the stability of 
government and the just exercise of its power, that 
the framers of the Declaration of Independence 
were not far from correct in declaring that ‘^to se* 
cure these rights governments are instituted among 
men.’’ It matters not whether regard be had to 
what is necessary to insure its own permanence and 
peace-preserving power or to that justice without 
which the exercise of power is tyranny, the high¬ 
est function of government is to make equally se¬ 
cure to every person within its jurisdiction as free 
and full enjoyment of every natural right as is com¬ 
patible with the preservation of the peace and the 
supremacy of the civil power. 

Efficient discharge of this function is impossi¬ 
ble without a clear and definite conception of the 
natural rights of man. There have not been want¬ 
ing those affecting* to deny the existence of such 
rights, none of whom, however, it is believed, ever 
.seriously questioned the validity of that first law of 


gov]srnm:^nt. 31 

nature the right of appeal to which is universally 
recognized as belonging to all men—the right of 
self-defense. xBut without primary natural rights 
there could be no valid foundation for the second¬ 
ary right of self-defense, which must indeed arise 
from the violation of some primary right. If man 
had no rights, nothing of whicli it would be wrong 
for another to deprive him, there would be noth¬ 
ing which he could rightfully defend, nor any right 
of self-defense. Without rights there could be no 
wrongs which are but the violation of rights, and 
without wrongs there could be no just warrant for 
government, for there could be no justice in pre¬ 
venting what was not wrong nor in enforcing what 
was not right. The State cannot make right wrong, 
nor wrong right. 

By natural rights are meant simply those re¬ 
lations which every man by the very nature of his 
being sustains to the universe and to preserve 
which from destruction or injury he may justly use 
whatever force is necessary. What are those re¬ 
lations? The first to suggest itself is that of life, 
the taking of which from man is universally ad¬ 
mitted to be wrong unless necessary in the defense 
of life. Murder was none the less wrong before 
the giving of the ten commandments than after, 
the command,. ‘‘Thou shalt not kill," being but the 


G OVER NI\I ENT. 


32 

enunciation of a law existing in the very nature of 
things. Every man has by nature the right to say 
to every other man, Thou shalt not kill me and I 
will kill you, if necessary to prevent you from tak¬ 
ing my life. The right to life being the highest of 
all rights, primary and so sacred as to warrant even 
the taking of life when necessary to its defense, it 
must entitle its possessor to the enjoyment of what¬ 
ever nature has made necessary to or provided for 
its preservation, support and healthful continuance, 
and man must therefore have a natural right to en¬ 
joy whatever is necessary to the preservation of an 
existence as healthful and happy as he can main¬ 
tain by embracing the opportunities provided by na¬ 
ture for that purpose. To that end man should 
have the freedom to use his mental faculties and 
physical powers not only in protecting himself 
from violence, but also in laboring for food, cloth¬ 
ing and shelter, in seeking, occupying and using 
localities most favorable to securing a subsistence, 
as well as to securing his health and happiness, the 
only natural and just limit to such freedom being 
that necessary to the equal freedom of other men. 
This freedom contemplates not merely freedom 
from imprisonment, from chattel slavery, the ab¬ 
sence of restraint over man’s conduct in any given 
place or places, but the freedoni to go whitherso 


GOVERNMENT. 33 

ever and to remain wherever he thinks best and to 
occupy and to use whatever place or opportunity 
nature has adapted to the promotion of his happi¬ 
ness. That is not liberty in an}^ complete sense 
which wants this freedom, against any unnecessary 
encroachment upon or restraint of which by others 
a man may as justly defend himself as against di¬ 
rect attempt upon his life. 

Another natural right commonly given a sepa¬ 
rate classification is that of property, Man in the 
exercise of his liberty labors to produce that which 
is necessary or conducive to his life and happiness, 
but in order that his labor may not be in vain, that 
his liberty may be complete, he must control and 
make such use and disposition of the product of his 
labor as seems best to him. That product is called 
property because proper to him,proprius, his own. 
It is his, however, not because necessary to his life 
or happiness, but because produced by him. It 
might become necessary in order to save his life 
for him to appropriate the property of some other 
man, and that without permission from the owner, 
but such appropriation, although necessary, would 
no more render the thing so appropriated his prop¬ 
erty than the taking of another man s life in self- 
defense would render that life his own. Property 
is a natural right, common alike to all men, because 



34 .GOVERNMENT. 

a right necessary to the existence of man; it is but 
the substance of the right to labor, and as there is 
no natural or just limit to the kind or amount of la¬ 
bor a man may perform if he chooses, except that 
prescribed by his natural ability and opportunities, 
so there can be no just limit to the kind or amount 
of property a man may acquire and hold except 
that prescribed by nature. 

Life, liberty and property constitute a compre¬ 
hensive classification of the natural rights of man; 
life and liberty being provided by nature, and 
property being acquired through the exercise of 
liberty. There are two ways of acquiring prop¬ 
erty, however, one by producing it and the other 
by receiving it in exchange for other property or 
for labor, that is, through contract, which although 
but the exercise of liberty may, nevertheless for 
convenience, be classified as one of the natural 
rights of man. A man may have produced certain 
property, but be in need of other property which 
he is unable to produce directly by his own labor, 
and he may desire to exchange some of that which, 
he has for some of that which he lacks, for instance, 
bread for meat. If he finds another man willing to 
make the exchange to which they voluntarily 
and mutually agree, the bread thereby be¬ 
comes the property of him that had the meat 


GOVERNMENT. 


35 

which becomes the property of him that had the 
bread. The right of contract results naturally and 
of necessity from the rights of liberty and prop¬ 
erty. In its exercise property may be exchanged 
for property or labor, and labor for labor, the sale 
of labor being but the sale of its product whatever 
it may prove to be, that is, a transfer of the prop¬ 
erty resulting from the labor. 

The right of self-defense, although natural and 
inalienable, is secondary in that it exists only by 
reason of the violation of some one or more of the 
above described primary rights of life, liberty, 
property and contract. It is in order that it may 
efficiently and not unjustly restrain and regulate 
the exercise of this secondary right, that the State 
in the discharge of its third function undertakes, 
and is in duty bound to secure the enjoyment of 
primary rights. This it seeks to accomplish 
through the enactment and enforcement of laws 
civil and criminal, having for their legitimate pur¬ 
pose the defining of rights and the securing of their 
enjoyment through direct protection and the inflic¬ 
tion of deterrent penalties for their violation. 

The fourth, or public-serving function of gov¬ 
ernment has for its immediate purpose the carrying 
on of enterprises and the performing of services 
necessary to the peaceful enjoyment by all of nat- 



GOVERNMENT. 


36 

iiral rights, provision for which enjoyment cannot 
be made without the aid of the State. For instance, 
the right of liberty as already seen includes not 
only the right to occupy and use natural opportun¬ 
ities, or land, but also the freedom to go from place 
to place, or the right of locomotion. But the go¬ 
ing from place to place necessitates the passing 
over intervening places which may be in the right¬ 
ful possession of persons whose rights will be in¬ 
fringed by such passing, and who will disturb the 
peace in their defense; hence it becomes necessary^ 
in order to preserve the peace and also to secure 
the right or freedom of locomotion to all, that high¬ 
ways shall be established and maintained over and 
upon which all persons may at all times freely pass 
at will. It is clear that nothing short of the su¬ 
preme power of government is adequate to the 
establishment and maintenance of such highways, 
and that' the principle applies not more to count}’ 
roads and city streets than to the great railways of 
a country no one of which could be built or oper¬ 
ated without the authority and aid of the State. 
The same principle applies to every natural mon¬ 
opoly and to every necessary enterprise whose 
nature or extent is such that it cannot be carried 
on as a private undertaking through the unaided ef¬ 
fort and co-operation of natural persons. In this 


GOVERNMENT. 37 

class are street railways, municipal water works, 
gas and electric light plants, telegraphs and tele¬ 
phones. If a postal system, safe deposit banks 
and a legal tender currency are public necessities, 
and cannot be maintained without the aid of gov¬ 
ernment, it should in the discharge of this function 
provide and control them. It should not^ how¬ 
ever, assume to carry on any gainful service or 
business that could be peaceably conducted by 
natural persons without its aid. To do so would 
be to unjustly interfere with natural opportunities 
for the support of life and the pursuit of happiness, 
and to deprive man of natural rights rather than to 
secure them lo him. Nor is the fact that any given 
or proposed enterprise or undertaking exceeds the 
compass of unaided individual ability alone suffi¬ 
cient to warrant the government in assuming to 
carry it on or to aid in its performance. That an 
enterprise seems desirable or would be beneficial 
in its results, is of itself no sufficient reason why 
the State should undertake or aid its performance. 
It can legitimately do only those things necessary 
to the efficient performance of its primary or 
peace-preserving function. 

All these four functions should in every case 
without exception be performed by the goverment 
itself through its own exclusively public servants 


GOVERNMENT. 


independently of any and all interests save the 
public. Separation of Church and State is not 
more essential to good government than is the sep¬ 
aration of the State from private interests of what 
ever name or nature. No man can serve two 
masters, nor can any man, the agent of a quasi¬ 
public, quasi-private corporation, render the, best 
service to the public, especially when he holds his 
position subject to the will of private stockholders. 
The State should have no partnership with persons 
natural or artificial. It should mind its own busi¬ 
ness. 


government. 


39 


CHAPTER III. 

THE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT A GUIDE TO LEGIS¬ 
LATIVE reform: CONSIDERATIONS OF SYMPATHY, 

MORALITY AND RELIGION.-THE COMPOSITE RIGHT 

TO LABOR. 

If the foregoing theory of government be cor¬ 
rect, the question naturally arises as to whether it 
can be reduced to practice, and, if so, how? 

If an opportunity were afforded for establish- 
ing government in a community that had previously 
lived in a state of nature without any of the re¬ 
straints of municipal law, it might not be difficult to 
adopt a code of laws founded on correct principles. 
There is no such community, however. As men 
were from necessity forced to build houses long be¬ 
fore there was a science of architecture, so have 
they from the first been compelled to establish and 
maintain governments often with litde knowledge 
of the principles upon which they should be con- 


40 


GOVERNMENT. 


ducted. But while unsatisfactory houses may be 
abandoned for new ones, governments have to be 
remodeled; they must be preserved and made to 
perform their primary function of keeping the 
peace while the work of remodeling goes on. 

Existing laws and legalized customs must be 
examined with a view to discovering first, what 
legitimate function of government, if any, they are 
respectively intended to serve, and secondly, 
whether they are calculated to accomplish the pur¬ 
pose for which they were intended. Any law or 
custom not necessary to the discharge of some 
such function should be repealed or abolished, 
while necessary laws should be so framed and en¬ 
forced as to effect their legitimate purpose only, 
the merely incidental effect of carelessly framed 
or cunningly devised laws being often productive 
of greater evil than any for whose removal they 
may be sincerely or ostensibly enacted. And if 
there be any natural right the equal enjoyment of 
which, by all persons is not practically secured by 
the government, no matter whether by reason of 
its failure to recognize the existence of such right 
or of its practical recognition of the validity of so- 
called vested rights that are but fictitious claims in¬ 
compatible with such enjoyment, inquiry should be 
made whether it to be secured by the repeal of 


GOVERNMENT. 


41 


exi.sting laws, the enactment of other laws, or by 
both such repeal and enactment. 

The limits of this essay preclude any compre¬ 
hensive systematic examination of existii g laws 
which will be noticed only so far as may be ne¬ 
cessary in illustrating the application of correct 
principles to the work of political reform, and in 
suggesting a rational, if not scientific method of 
solving certain so-called problems or government. 

The first question to be asked regarding any 
reform proposed to be effected through legislation, 
is'whether its object be one for whose accom¬ 
plishment civil power may be legitimately used; 
whether the government be responsible for the ex¬ 
istence or non-existence of whatever is souo^ht to 
be abolished or produced by its action. Consider¬ 
ations of sympathy, morality or religion are never 
alone and of themselves a sufficient warrant for the 
action of government, although they may serve to 
call attention to the abuse of its power. For in¬ 
stance, if in examining existing or proposed Sun¬ 
day laws it should be found that their sole object 
was to compel observance of and respect for Sun¬ 
day as a religious duty, they would be wholly un¬ 
warranted, for no matter how sacred the day may 
be regarded by some men, no matter how holy it 
may indeed be, no man has a natural right nor any 


GOVERNMENT. 


42 

right to compel another to observe it, nor have 
all other men any right to enforce its observ¬ 
ance as a religious duty by any man. If, how¬ 
ever, it be necessary to the health and happi¬ 
ness of man that he have an opportunity to rest 
from his accustomed labor one day in seven, such 
opportunity is a natural right, and if the aid of gov¬ 
ernment be necessary to secure its enjoyment, 
then it becomes the duty of the State to do so in 
the discharge of its third, or right-preserving fuc- 
tion. It is clear, moreover, that laws looking 
merely to the accomplishment of that end would 
not prohibit any conduct except such as prevented 
man from spending the day in rest and recreation. 
The State has no right to dictate in what manner 
a man shall rest, nor has it any right to forbid his 
working on Sunday if he wishes to do so; it has 
discharged its duty when it secures to him absolute 
freedom to work, to play or to rest, as he may 
prefer, provided he thereby interferes with the 
freedom of no other man. 

The same course of reasoning applies to all 
laws having for their object the enforcement of 
purely religious or moral duties. Because blas¬ 
phemy, lying, drunkenness, fornication or theft 
are violations of religious obligation or are mor¬ 
ally wrong, is no sufficient reason why the State 



GOVERNMENT. 


43 


should prohibit them. Unless their prevention be 
necessary to the securing of some natural right or 
to the preservation of the public peace and order, 
it is a misuse of civil power to use it for such pur¬ 
pose. Nor is it to be believed that the cause of 
morality or worthy religion would suffer from the 
restricting of the exercise of civil power to legiti¬ 
mate ends. Although almighty wisdom and power 
might have compelled all men to be moral and 
religious, every man has been given the liberty to 
go to perdition if he chooses to do so, and no 
other man has any right natural or acquired to pre¬ 
vent him, much less to compel other men to pay 
taxes in aid of such prevention. Time has been 
when zealous rulers have compelled whole com¬ 
munities to profess some particular faith or to par¬ 
ticipate in some religious ceremony, thousands of 
pagans, for instance, becoming nominal Christians 
in one day at the command of a victorious empe¬ 
ror. Such conduct was tyrannical, as is every at¬ 
tempt of the State to interfere with religious con¬ 
victions or with the want of them. 

The government most favorable to morality 
and to religion pure and undefiled is that which 
secures to every man the enjoyment of the fullest 
liberty compatible with the public peace and order, 
where every man is free to exert whatever in- 


44 


GOVERNMENT. 


fluence he can, by precept and by example, individu¬ 
ally and by voluntary association in religious or 
other organizations, for the enlightenment and im¬ 
provement of himself and of his fellow men. 
There can be little doubt that the attempts of gov¬ 
ernment to promote morality and religion by arbi¬ 
trary enactments have greatly retarded progress 
in that direction. Freedom of thought, freedom 
of speech and freedom of action in regard to all 
subjects and questions are rights the enjoyment of 
which a just goverment is bound to secure to every 
citizen, to Jew and to Gentile, to Christian and to 
Pagan, to Catholic and Protestant, to believer and 
infidel. The infidel has no more right to coerce 
the believer in matters of faith than in others, and 
no more right has the believer to coerce the infidel; 
nor can government have any right to do what no 
one of the individuals composing it would have the 
right to do. 

Nor is the State any more by right a charit¬ 
able or alms-giving institution than it is a religious 
one. . Sympathy is a noble impulse which man 
should have the liberty to obey, but no man can be 
rightfully compelled to obey another’s impulse, 
however worthy. 

Any number of men may make voluntary 
united effort for the relief of suffering of any kind, 


i 


GOVERNMENT. 


45 

but they cannot rightfully compel others not re- 
• sponsible for such suffering to contribute to its 
relief. Laws for the relief of the destitute poor 
must if warranted have some other foundation 
than sympathy, some other warrant than any real 
or supposed moral obligation binding the individual 
to relieve poverty for whose existence he is in no 
way responsible; that warrant, if any, must consist 
in the fact that such laws are necessary to the dis¬ 
charge of some one or more of the four functions 
of government. Nor can it be doubted that 
such warrant exists. In the discharge of its sec¬ 
ond, or peace-preserving, function the State must 
, provide against peace-disturbing, lav/-defying hun¬ 
ger. Too many starving men would even endan¬ 
ger the goverment itself, rendering it powerless to 
discharge its first, or self-preserving function. 

There is a growing impression, moreover, that 
existing governments are bound to provide for the 
destitute not more by reason of the primary and 
direct obligation to discharge legitimate functions 
than because of an indirect and secondary obliga¬ 
tion arising from the neglect to efficiently discharge 
those functions; in short, that government is re¬ 
sponsible for much of the poverty that exists, and 
should therefore relieve it. If such impression be 
well founded, it is clear that the efforts of the State 


GOVERNMENT. 


46 

should be directed to the discovery and removal of 
what may be termed governmental causes of pov¬ 
erty rather than to compensatory legislation falsely 
called charitable. It is possible that, if govern¬ 
ment efficiently performed all its legitimate func¬ 
tions, secured to all its citizens the full enjoyment 
of all their natural rights, there would be no more 
poverty than would meet with prompt and un¬ 
grudging relief at the hands of those whose hearts 
are naturally moved to sympathy with suffering. 
Then, indeed, might it be more blessed to give 
than to receive. Under existing conditions, how¬ 
ever, encouraged and maintained by the State, 
poverty is so great as to paralyze charity and stifle 
the generous impulses from which it naturally 
springs. Inevitable poverty is no disgrace to the 
poor, but that, if any there be, caused by stupid, 
unjust laws is a disgrace and just menace to the 
government producing it. 

If attention be directed to legislation in the in 
terest of labor, the question at once arises as to 
what legitimate function of government there is 
warranting action in that behalf. Idle men are, of 
course, a dangerous element in a community; they 
are not unlikely to disturb the peace, and a suf¬ 
ficient number of them might even seriously en¬ 
danger the stability of the government itself; and 


GOVERNMENT. 


47 

the State, in the discharge of its peace-preserving, 
as well as of its self-preserving function, may, 
doubtless, when necessary, provide employment 
for those unable to find it. 

There is, however, a somewhat prevalent im¬ 
pression that the government is under some natural 
obligation to provide profitable employment for all 
its citizens, or that everyone hasarightto demand 
employment of the State. In view of this and of the 
persistent and constantly increasing demand for 
legislation in behalf of labor, it is important to de¬ 
cide what, if any, the so-called rights of labor arc. 

Why should the State provide labor any more 
than property, the product of labor? Why provide 
labor more than rest from labor? Why regulate 
the hours of labor more than those of sleep? No 
man has a natural right to demand employment 
from another, nor has any man, or any majority of 
men, a . right to compel one man to employ an¬ 
other. If the State be under any obligation to in¬ 
dividuals by which it is bound to furnish them em¬ 
ployment, that obligation, must, like that of provid¬ 
ing for the poor, be secondary in its nature, and 
arise from the neglect to efficiently discharge some 
one or more of its legitimate functions, and solu¬ 
tion of the labor problem in so far as the State is 


48 GOVERNMENT. 

concerned, demands careful inquiry as to whether 

there be any such neglect. 

Labor being necessary and natural to the sup¬ 
port of life the right to life carries with it of necessity 
the right to labor, and any classification of natural 
rights may at first seem incomplete if it fails to 
specify the right to labor. Analysis will show, 
however, that what is called the right to labor 
is composite, being made up of and from the rights 
of liberty, property and contract, and that wher¬ 
ever these rights are efficiently and fully secured 
there will the enjoyment of natural opportunities 
for labor be unimpaired. If government be at 
fault in respect to labor, it must be by reason of 
the failure to preserve certain natural relations or 
conditions which would be and are natural rights 
independently of any relation they may sustain to 
labor, for the reason that every man may justly 
defend himself in their enjoyment whether for pur¬ 
poses of labor or otherwise, but which because of 
their relation to labor and for convenience of inves¬ 
tigation may be called labor rights. Whether gov¬ 
ernment discharges its duty to labor depends upon 
whether it secures to all persons the equal enjoy¬ 
ment of these so-called labor rights. 

What are these rights, thosematural conditions 
upon the existence of which full and complete en¬ 
joyment of labor and its legitimate result depends? 


government. 49 

In the first place, labor must of necessity be applied 
to land, the only source from which life sustaining 
products of labor can be drawn, and the laborer 
must ever have a place in and upon which to be 
and to labor, so that occupancy and use of land is 
a labor right, one, however, to the enjoyment of 
which man is entitled, as already seen, by virtue 
of his right to liberty. Secondly, in order that his 
labor may not be in vain he must control and enjoy 
its product, so that the right of property is itself a 
labor right. Thirdly, any man may find it conven¬ 
ient, advantageous and even necessary to the com¬ 
plete enjoyment of his labor to exchange a part or 
all of its product for that of some other man s 
labor; or they may both desire to exchange labor 
for labor, or one may be willing to give and an¬ 
other to take an agreed price for specified labor, so 
that the right of contract is also labor a right the full 
enjoyment of which depends upon the liberty to 
buy, sell or exchange wherever and whenever the 
contracting parties may choose, whatever they may 
have a right to buy, sell or exchange, be it labor 
or property, the product of labor. 

These, then, are the natural, reasonable and 
necessary conditions the enjoyment of which gov- 
erment, in the performance of its right preserving 


50 


GOVERNMENT. 


funct.on, must secure to every citizen, in order to 
discharge its duty in respect to labor: 

First.— Freedom of access to land.for althouo-h 
a man may sell his labor to another, he cannot part 
with the natural right to labor for himself directly 
upon the earth, since it may become necessary to 
so labor in order to preserve life, no one desiring 
to purchase his labor or being willing or able to 
pay for it enough to support life. 

Second.— The control and enjoyment of the 
product of his labor, or security of property. 

Third.— The freedom to exchange his labor 
for the property or Ubor that others may be willing 
to give in exchange for it, or the Hiberty of contract, 
including the natural market for the buying and 
selling of labor and property, free from any re 
strictions as to persons or places and from any in¬ 
terference with or limitation of price or commod¬ 
ity except that arising from natural competition; 
that is, the exercise of the same right and the en¬ 
joyment of the same opportunities by other men, 
no one of them having any privilege or any mon' 
opoly, except such as may exist by reason of 
differences in the natural ability of individuals. 

If the government secures these rights, that 
IS, the enjoyment of natural opportunities for the 
occupancy and use of land, of the right to prop- 


GOVERNMENT. 


51 

erty, and of freedom of contract, all of which it i i 
bound to do in the discharge of its right-preserving 
function, then there can be no legitimate ground 
for legislation in relation to labor further than may 
be necessary to the preservation of the peace and 
public order. If, on the other hand, natural op¬ 
portunities for the occupancy and use of land are 
not preserved and held equally open to the enjoy¬ 
ment of all persons, or if security of property or 
the complete freedom of contract be not fully 
maintained, then as a result the composite right to 
labor is not secure, and it devolves upon the State 
in the discharge of its right-preserving function to 
adopt measures adequate to the preservation of all 
the conditions necessary to its complete enjoyment. 



52 


GOVERNMENT. 


CHAPTER IV. 

THE RIGHT TO LAND INALIENABLE.—LAND NOT PROP¬ 
ERTY.—A JUST SYSTEM OF LAND TENURE AND 
OF TAXATION. 

In order to determine whether the natural op* 
portunity and right to occupy and use land is effi¬ 
ciently secured to all persons attention must be 
given to existing land laws and the legalized sys¬ 
tem of land tenure. Under that system land is 
regarded and treated as property to be bought and 
sold, and to be accumulated and held for the ex¬ 
clusive advantage and benefit of whomsoever the 
law declares to be its owner, who may possess as 
much as he can acquire. 

Inquiry is first to be made then as to whether 
land is property, and, if not, whether it can be 
treated as such without impairing any natural rela¬ 
tion, condition or right which government is bound 
to secure, and it may be well, even at the risk of 
repeating ideas already expressed, to examine 
somewhat carefully into the right of every man to 



GOVERNMENT, 53 

land upon which to live and labor, as well as into 
the claim of right to property in land. 

Since land is as natural as man himself, is not 
the product of his labor, can not be increased or 
diminished by him, but is rather a necessary condi¬ 
tion of his existence on earth, all men alike sus¬ 
tain a certain and the same natural relation to land. 
How and when is it that any man comes to sustain 
any other or different relation.^ In order to ascer¬ 
tain the nature and extent of this common natural 
right to land, suppose that there was but one man 
upon the earth. His natural right to land would 
certainly be as great and as complete as if he were 
not alone. What relation would he sustain to the 
land? He would depend upon it for his existence, 
and would have the unquestioned, undoubted right 
to occupy and use as much of it as was necessary to 
the support and enjoyment of life. His right would 
be that of occupancy and use, and the boundary of 
his claim, both as to limit of time and space, would 
be the extent of his personal needs. Any other 
claim would be as idle and unfounded as any that 
he might make to the moon. Suppose the number 
of persons on earth to be increased by the coming 
of other men. What effect would their presence 
have upon the right of the first man? Would it 
be thereby increased or diminished, its nature or 


GOVERNMENT. 


4 

extent or his relation to the land changed in any 
way from what they had been.^ There would be 
the same necessity for him to use land as before, 
and to the same extent, no more and no less. He 
had no reason for claiming more than he could per¬ 
sonally use before the coming of other men, and 
the only possible reason for making greater or 
other claim after their coming, would be that some 
of them might use it for his advantage. But how¬ 
ever much he might desire this, he could not claim 
it as a right any more than they could rightfully 
compel him to use it for them. Whatever right to 
land that man would have when solitary upon the 
earth must remain with him in society, every mem¬ 
ber of which having the same right. Even if there 
were not enough for all, each would be justified by 
virtue of the right of self-defense in defending 
himself in the use of as much as was necessary to 
his support. This natural right of every man to 
occupy and use land necessary and convenient for 
his support, carries with it, moreover, by virtue of 
the right to liberty, the freedom and right to take 
possession for such purpose, of any land not al¬ 
ready occupied by some other man for the same 
purpose. If a location already occupied by him 
proves unsatisfactory, he may, by natural right and 
law, abandon it and take some other. So long, 


GOVERNMENT. 


55 

however, as he holds land sufficient for his sup- 
port, he can not justly take and hold other addi¬ 
tional land to the exclusion of other men, since he 
exercises, satisfies and exhausts his natural right by 
continuing his first holding, no man having two 
natural rights to land nor any natural right to hold 
more than he needs to the exclusion of other men. 
The possession by any man occupying land suf¬ 
ficient for his personal needs of other land in ad¬ 
dition thereto, must be subject to the natural right 
of other men to occupy and use such additional 
land, nor can any man become possessed of any 
other than his own natural right to land, unless he 
acquires it from some other man. The truth of the 
latter proposition will appear from the self-evident 
fact that all so-called rights are derived either from 
natural or municipal law; they are either bestowed 
by nature or conferred by man. Nature gives one 
and the same right in land to all men alike; if .any 
man have other right, he must have acquired it 
from other men. But since no man has more than 
natural right to begin with, and since no man or 
men can part with more than they have, no men, 
not even the greatest majority, can convey to any 
man any other than their natural right, and any 
claim by any man of other than his own natural 
right to land, must be based upon and consist of 
some other man’s or men s natural right which has 


56 GOVERNMENT. 

been conveyed to him and become his, if at all. 

by reason of such conveyance. 

But is it reasonable to suppose that any man 
would ever, even if he could, part with or surren¬ 
der to another his natural right to the use of land 
any more than he would the right to use light and 
air, which he would in reality do in relinquishing his 
right to land? He might indeed surrender to an¬ 
other the possession of some particular portion of 
land, but it would of necessity be with the expec¬ 
tation of finding and using some other portion; 
otherwise he would part with the necessary condi¬ 
tions ot life itself, and he to whom the surrender 
should be made would be guilty of taking life, un- 
Tess he recognized and assumed as a condition to 
his possession of the land surrendered the obliga¬ 
tion to permit the man surrendering it to be and 
support himself upon that or other land possessed 
by the purchaser, an admission that the right to 
occupy and use land is inalienable and cannot be 
transferred by one to another, nor taken from one 
by another. The exclusive ownership or posses¬ 
sion of land that another man has a natural right 
to use, and upon which he depends for support, 
must of necessity involve not only the ownership 
of the land but also of the man himself, together 
with the right to deprive him of life itself. 


GOVERNMENT. 


57 

But while it is not reasonable to suppose that 
any man would voluntarily part with his natural 
right to land even if he could, is it any more reas¬ 
onable to think that any man possessed of and en¬ 
joying his own natural right would desire to be¬ 
come possessed of another’s? Of what advantage 
would it be to a man, having and enjoying the 
right to breathe what air he could, to become pos¬ 
sessed of another man’s similar right; or as already 
suggested, having and enjoying the right to use all 
the land he could, what use could he make of an¬ 
other man’s similar right, unless he could use the 
man with and upon the land? 

It must be clear that if any man is to hold 
other or greater title to land than that which he 
holds by natural right, he must acquire it from some 
other man or men. But what title to any particu¬ 
lar land can one man give to another? He that 
surrenders possession must of necessity, as already 
seen, to do so with the expectation of occupying 
some other portion of land. By what right will he 
take possession of that other portion? It can be 
only by virtue of his own natural right. But, if 
while surrendering possession of some particular 
land, lie retains and carries away with him the only 
right by which he held it, what right or title can 
he give to him to whom he yields possession? The 


58 GOVERNMENT, 

latter takes and holds possession by virtue alone 
of his own natural right, which can be neither in¬ 
creased nor diminished by any act of himself or of 
other men. The natural right to land, included as 
it is in the right to liberty, Is inalienable, and is at 
all times and everywhere possessed alike by al^ 
men, no one of whom can ever part with it or be¬ 
come possessed of any greater, less or different 
right to land. Any and all claims of title to, and 
every possession of land, must be subject to the 
natural right of all men to land, and any system of 
land tenure that fails to secure all men In the en¬ 
joyment of that right exists In violation of such 
right. The claim of exclusive ownership recog¬ 
nized and upheld by existing law and custom is 
without foundation in nature, and can be enforced 
only in violation of natural right. The State in¬ 
stead of securing natural rights uses its power for 
their destruction by maintaining the existing sys¬ 
tem of land tenure. Instead of being real prop¬ 
erty, as it is called, land is really not property at 
all, and the fiction by which It is regarded and 
treated as property is far from harmless. 

In order that all men may enjoy their natural 
right to land, it should be possible for any and every 
man, not finding the opportunity or not desiring 
to sell his labor to another, to find and occupy land 




GOVERNMKNT. 


59 

upon which to labor for himself, and that without 
paying any man for the opportunity. There are but 
two methods of profitable labor, one by laboring for 
one’s self and enjoying the product, the other by 
selling labor for wages. The former is primary^ 
the most natural and must be always open and 
practicable, or the latter ceases to af¥ord natural 
advantages for the sale of labor, since, if there is 
no opportunity to labor for one’s self, the laborer 
is forced not only to work for wages but for what¬ 
ever wage is offered^ and even to go without em¬ 
ployment, if no one is willing to hire him. Such 
is the condition of many laborers to-day, land be¬ 
ing held as property by some men to the exclusion 
of*others who are not permitted to labor on it for 
themselves, and can find no one to employ them. 
The inevitable result is idle men, a glut in the la¬ 
bor market, and low wages for such as find em^ 
ployment. So long as government is responsible 
for this result, it is under obligation to make such 
reparation as it can to those whom it permits to be 
deprived of the natural right to labor. As was said 
by Jefferson, ‘‘The earth is given as a common 
stock for man to labor on, if for the encourage¬ 
ment of industry, we allow it to be appropriated, 
we must take care that other employment be furn¬ 
ished to those excluded from the appropriation. If 


6o 


GOVERNMENT. 


we do not, the fundamental right to labor on the 
earth returns to the unemployed.’’ That funda¬ 
mental right, indeed^ has not been, can not be 
taken from man; he is simply deprived of its enjoy¬ 
ment, and that by government whose proper function 
is to secure such enjoyment. Nor does the en¬ 
couragement of industry demand any such appro¬ 
priation of land as to deprive any man of oppor- 
tunity to use it, nor can industry be encouraged 
however much speculation may be stimulated there ¬ 
by. Man is never really benefited by the violation 
of natural law; whatever seeming gain may result 
therefrom to some, is at the real loss of others, nor 
is that gain for the ultimate good of even those 
that reap it. 

The injustice and injurious results of land 
speculation may be illustrated by a single and by 
no means unusual transaction. Bearing in rnind 
that property, an abundance of which is commonly 
called wealth, is always the product of labor on 
land, suppose that some man buys unoccupied and 
unimproved land which he holds unoccupied and 
unimproved until by reason of increased demand 
he sells it for a net profit of a thousand dollars 
over and above all that it has cost him, including 
taxes, incidental expenses, his original investment 
and interest thereon. Whence comes that thou- 


GOVERNMENT. 


6i 


sand dollars, that gain of wealth to him? It is the 
product of labor on land, but not of any labor of 
his nor of the labor of any one on that land which 
has been unproductive. It is beyond question the 
product of the labor of some other men on some 
other land. What value does he give for that 
product, what compensation do those men receive 
for it or for the labor that produced it? 

It may be argued that since men hold land for 
profit and will naturally permit other men to use it 
whenever a profit can be made thereby, the use of 
land is not prevented or discouraged by exclusive 
possession under claim of ownership. It should 
be remembered, however, that one cannot realize 
profit from the labor of other men unless its prod¬ 
uct be more than sufficient for their support while 
they labor, and that when labor on land will not 
produce more than a subsistence for the laborer he 
will not be employed on land held for profit. If 
the land were free to him^ however, he would 
gladly use it even for the meagre support it might 
yield, rather than suffer want, as he must when ex¬ 
cluded from the land and unable to find an em¬ 
ployer. 

Whether government discharges its duty to 
every citizen in respect to labor as related to land 
or whether there is something which it ought but 


GOVERNMENT. 


62 

neglects to do, may be seen by supposing a young 
man to become of age with nothing but his labor 
to depend upon for support, as is or has been at 
some time the case with most men; that he is un¬ 
able to find any one to employ him or pay living 
wagesfor his labor, as is too often the case; and that 
although there is within easy reach abundance of 
unused land upon which he could support himself 
if permitted, it is as is generally the case all in the 
the exclusive possession of men who forbid his 
occupying it without paying them for so doing. Is 
it not clearly the duty of the State in the discharge 
of its right-preserving function to so modify its 
land laws that that young man and the thousands 
of other men similarly situated may be enabled to 
occupy and use as much land as may be necessary 
to their support, provided they do not thereby in¬ 
terfere with any other man’s natural right to land? 
Whoever suggests in this connection that the land¬ 
less man may obtain the use of land by sharing the 
product of his labor thereon with the so-called 
owner of the land should be again reminded that 
such product may be and often is barely sufficient 
to support the laborer and those naturally depend¬ 
ent upon him. Land producing only enough to 
support the laborer has really no value, and the 
holding of it unused by sorne men to the exclusion 


GOVERNMENT. 


63 

of Others who would use it if permitted, is made 
possible by the State as a result of treating land 
as property, and is a species of most pernicious 
tyranny, for which the State alone is responsible, 
since it could not be practiced without the aid of 
government. 

The present system of land tenure not only 
fails to secure the enjoyment of natural rights to 
land, but even renders it impossible for the major¬ 
ity to enjoy them, and the first step to be taken by 
the State in solving the labor problem and with it 
many other problems is the adoption of a system 
that shall secure such rights to all. With a view 
to that end it is sometimes suggested that no man 
should be allowed to hold more than a certain 
number of acres of land to the exclusion of other 
men; that by such limitation there could be no such 
appropriation as to prevent any man from occupy¬ 
ing land. Such limitation, however, although it 
might enable every man to occupy land, would not 
secure the enjoyment of equal rights to land, while 
it would at the same time prevent the natural and 
most beneficial use of it. Under such a system 
the land of one man might be so much more pro¬ 
ductive or valuable than that of another that while 
the latter could barely make a living on his the 
former might live on his without labor, its product 


GOVERNMENT. 


64 GOVERNMENT, 

being sufficient for his support, and also to pa^ 
living wages to men hired to cultivate it. It is not 
equal amounts of land, but equal advantages for 
making beneficial use of it, to which all men are 
entitled.' Nor would such a limitation be desirable 
even if all land were equally productive, for as 
some men do not care to maintain permanent ex¬ 
clusive possession of any land, there is no reason 
why other men should not if they desire make use 
of whatever the former decline to use. 

A just system of land tenure must not only 
make it possible for every man to occupy land, but 
also provide that persons permitted to enjoy ad¬ 
vantageous holdings shall account for the value of 
the advantages they enjoy to those equally entitled 
to but foregoing such advantages. For simplicity 
of illustration, suppose five men to be jointly and 
equally interested in a certain tract of l^nd which 
they are about to occupy, dividing it into five farms, 
one of which each man is to make the permanent 
abode of himself and family, and that the several 
farms are so different in fertility that a good living 
can be made on the best one with little labor while 
the poorest yields only a meagre support to the 
most unremitting toil. How can those men take 
and hold possession each of one of those farms as 
a permanent home and at the same time share 


i 





GOVERNMENT. 


65 

equally in their common right in and to the whole 
tract of land.^ It is but reasonable to suppose that 
some one of them would be willing to pay what 
might be agreed upon by all as a fair price for the 
first choice of locations, say one hundred dollars; 
that another would pay seventy-five dollars for the 
second choice, another fifty for the third, still another 
twenty-five for the fourth, while the fifth or last 
man would pay nothing, for he would have no 
choice, but would take what was left. The 
several sums so paid, amounting to two hundred 
and fifty dollars, would clearly belong to the five 
men in equal shares, because resulting from the 
sale of that which belonged equally to them all, 
and divided among them would give fifty dollars to 
each, reducing the sum to be actually paid by the 
first chooser to fifty dollars, which might well go 
the last man to make up for the extra labor neces¬ 
sary to make his land as productive as the average; 
the second chooser would actually pay only twenty- 
five dollars, which would go to the fourth man to 
render his land as productive as the average, while 
the third man, the price of whose choice was fifty 
dollars, would actually pay nothing, his land being 
of the average to which the different tracts had 
been reduced by the paying or receiving of a money 
difference in value. By this arrangement each man 


66 


GOVERNMENT. 


would come as near to sharing equally in the 
natural advantages of the whole tract as would be 
practically possible. The choice price paid for su¬ 
perior localities would be rent, which is as natural 
as land itself, and the nature of which will appear 
more clearly perhaps if it be supposed that the 
poorest farm produces but ten bushels to the acre, 
the next yielding fifteen bushels to the same labor 
would have a rental value of five bushels to the 
acre; the next producing twenty bushels would 
have a rental value of ten bushels; the next pro¬ 
ducing twenty-five would have a rental value of 
fifteen bushels, and the last or best farm, if it pro¬ 
duced thirty bushels to the acre, would have a ren¬ 
tal value of twenty bushels, while the first or poor¬ 
est farm would have no rental value, and is called 
no-rent land, being the least desirable land in use. 
Rental value, the only value that land has, results 
naturally from difference in fertility or in desir 
ability for any use, from naturally inherent quali¬ 
ties or from advantages of location produced by 
the presence, labors and necessities of a surround¬ 
ing population, and this value belongs in each and 
every instance to no particular individual or indi¬ 
viduals, since no individual ever produces it, but 
rather to all men, for the natural right to land at¬ 
taches not merely to no-rent lands but also to those 


gove:rnme:nt. 


67 

having rental value whose advantages should be 
shared equally by all, no less than the benefits of 
no-rent land. 

Our present system not only permits certain 
individuals to appropriate to themselves the rental 
value of all land, but also enables them to exact a 
price, an artificial rent, for the use of no-rent lands, 
practically excluding other men from such use since 
no-rent lands seldom yield product sufficient to en¬ 
able the laborer to support himself and pay a price 
for possession. The result is that many men are 
forced to sell or try to sell their labor which no 
man is compelled to buy. The system also en¬ 
ables the so-called owners of valuable lands to cul¬ 
tivate or render them otherwise productive through 
the labor of landless men at such wages as to 
make it unnecessary for such owners to perform 
any labor since they can thereby live on the labor 
of others. 

A just and equitable system of land tenure will 
hold no-rent lands open and free to the occupancy of 
any persons desiring to use them, and compel those 
occupying valuable lands to account to,the public 
for their annual rental value. For illustration let 
the above supposed tract of land represent a coun¬ 
try; suppose that instead of five its occupants are 
ten men who shall represent the State; that four of 


68 GOVERNMENT, 

them are occupying choice locations or valuable 
lands for which they pay two hundred and fifty dol¬ 
lars rent; that the other six occupy, some of them, 
no-rent land, and others no land at all, but work 
upon valuable land for wages. It is clear that the 
rent fund of two hundred and fifty dollars belongs 
to all the ten men, each being entitled to twenty- 
five dollars. Suppose, further, that certain neces¬ 
sary expenses are to be incurred for the common 
benefit of the ten men, to defray which it was pro¬ 
posed to levy a tax upon them. Would it not be 
wiser to apply the rent fund to the payment of such 
expenses, each man thus paying the same amount 
as in justice he should? Upon the same principle 
the State should require the holders and so called 
owners of valuable land to pay its annual rental 
value, that is, the rental value of the bare land re¬ 
gardless of improvements thereon, into the public 
treasury, the total amount to be applied, as in jus¬ 
tice it should, to the payment of public or govern¬ 
ment expenses, rendering other methods of raising 
a revenue as unnecessary as they are vexatious, in¬ 
jurious and unjust. Under such a system valuable 
agricultural or mining lands and city lots now held 
vacant and unimproved in the expectation of an ad¬ 
vance in their selling price would cither be put to 


GOVERNMENT. 


69 

productive use by their present holders or aban¬ 
doned to somebody willing to make such use of 
them, while the no-rent lands would be free to the 
occupancy of any desiring to use them affording 
such as were unable to find employment or did not 
care to work for wages, the natural, never failing 
opportunity to labor for themselves, and capital no 
longer driven into hiding to escape taxation, would 
seek investment in productive enterprises, thereby 
increasing the demand for labor and the rate of 
i wages. 

j 

j What valid objection can there be to the 
j gradual introduction and adoption of such a sys¬ 
tem ? It would not be State ownership of the land^ 

I for, as already seen, no man can own land; no 
I more can many or all men, the State, own it. The 
; State even now, as it must, in order to keep 
the peace and secure natural rights, assumes to 
regulate and control the possession of land, and it 
would do no more under the proposed system. 
Permanency of individual possession would be no 
less secure than now, depending then as now upon 
paymentof the so-called tax, each man paying for 
whatever advantage he was permitted to enjoy to the 
exclusion of others who areas much entitled to it as 
he, while the poorest person could always find and 



GOVERNMENT. 


70 

occupy no-rent land upon which there would be lit¬ 
tle iS any tax. Those now holding land would 
continue to hold as much of it as they cared to use, 
while those now unable to get possession of any 
would be enabled to occupy some of that which is 
now of no use to anybody. That it would be a 
virtual confiscation of economic or ground rent is 
no valid objection to the proposed system since, as 
already seen that rent really belongs to the public 
rather than to private persons. If there should be 
any so unfortunate in speculation as to have all 
their means invested in vacant, unimproved land 
the selling price of which would be lost to them by 
reason of the State’s appropriating the annual 
rent, they, in common with those whom their pos¬ 
session now excludes from land, would be in better 
condition than the latter noware, for they would be 
free to retain all that they could profitably use. 
The income of landlords would be diminished but 
few if any persons would be reduced to poverty, 
while vast numbers would be raised from poverty 
to self-supporting independence, simply by having 
restored to them the enjoyment of natural rights 
of which they are now unjustly deprived. 

A just system of land tenure as well as an 
equitable system of taxation demands that econom- 


government. 


n 


ic or ground rent shall be collected by the State 
and appropriated to the payment of public expen¬ 
ses. Its adoption would go far towards solving the 
labor problem, the problem of poverty, and the 
many problems of vice in so far as the State is. 
properly charged with their solution. 




72 


GOVERNMENT. 


CHAPTER V. 

FREEDOM OF CONTRACT.-NATURAL COMPETITION.- 

PERSONS NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL.-CORPORATE 

PRIVILEGE.—TRUSTS. —CIVIC CORRUPTION. 

But since security of the right to labor de¬ 
pends not only upon access to land, but also upon 
enjoyment of the right of property and upon free¬ 
dom of contract, inquiry should not be limited to 
land laws, but should be also directed to all laws in 
any way relating to or affecting that right or that 
freedom, whether directly or indirectly. 

It will at once be seen that existing land laws 
violate the right of property in that they deprive 
men of the natural and only certain opportunity for 
acquiring property, namely, free access to land. 
It is also clear that prevailing methods of taxation 
and raising the public revenue are unjust interfer¬ 
ences with that right, for man has a natural right 
to possess and enjoy the full €enefit resulting from 
his industry and economy, and there is no justice 
or wisdom in subjecting him through taxation to a 
penalty proportioned to his thrift. Those methods 


GOVERNMENT. 


75 


at the same time interfere with the freedom and im¬ 
pair the right of contract, for man has a natural 
right to manufacture, buy and sell without let or 
hindrance, and to compel him to pay a license or 
tax for exercising the right is an unwarrantable in¬ 
terference with his freedom of contract. These 
violations of labor rights will, however, as already 
shown, disappear upon the adoption of a correct 
system of taxation and land tenure. 

But since the right of contract depends also 
upon the unrestricted freedom to contract with any 
and all persons, at all times and in all places for 
the buying, selling or exchanging of whatever may 
rightfully be the subject of barter, any and all laws 
directly or indirectly restraining, or unnaturally 
stimulating or encouraging the manufacture or sale 
of commodities, making it easier for some than for 
others to engage or continue in any industrial pur¬ 
suit, or changing in any way the relations which 
naturally exist among the members of a community 
so as to affect the natural inclinations, tendencies 
and abilities of men to produce and exchange, are 
unwarranted and injurious interferences with the 
freedom of contract and should be abolished unless 
absolutely necessary to the preservation of the 
peace. 

No fallacy has been productive of greater in- 





74 GOVERNMENT, 

jury than the popular one that it may the proper 
business of the State to promote or encourage pri¬ 
vate enterprises by legislation in that behalf. 
Sometimes it is attempted through subsidies, but 
more often and very generally at present by grant¬ 
ing to individuals certain immunities or privileges 
which, although nominally free to all, can not in the 
nature of things be enjoyed by all. The result is 
that persons already enjoying the superior good 
fortune of being in a position to avail themselves 
of the favor of the State, are by such favor en- 
anbled to enjoy still greater advantages over the 
less fortunate, and the relations which naturally 
exist among men, and which constitute the natural 
field for industry and the natural market for the 
exchange of labor and its products are disturbed 
to the advantage of some and the injury of others, 
In the absence of any interference by the State 
other than that necessary to the preservation of the 
peace, men would engage in callings according to 
their respective tastes and abilities, some in one and 
some in another industry, some on their own ac¬ 
count and some for wages, some alone and others 
in associations known as partnerships, but all alike 
subject to natural obligations, limitations and laws. 
Different persons might engage in the same branch 
or kind of business, competing with each other in 


GOVERNMENT. 


75 

their efforts to succeed and endeavoring to please 
their customers and employes upon whose patron¬ 
age and good will their success would depend. 
Those offering the highest inducements would be 
the most successful, while those not meeting with 
satisfactory success could, when land was free 
and enterprise no longer hindered by inequitable 
taxation, readily find some other occupation better 
suited to their ability. Such would be the natural 
condition of labor and of trade, the price of labor 
and of commodities being controlled by a natural 
law, that of natural competition. 

By natural competition is meant simply the 
cojnmon, universal and commendable endeavor of 
natural persons to realize each the largest rightful 
return from the application of his personal efforts 
to natural opportunities, those efforts including 
whatever service may minister to the rational de¬ 
sires of man. Differences in taste and natural 
ability will result in the distribution of personal 
efforts among the varied pursuits necessary to the 
gratification of those desires as well as in varied 
degrees of success, but so long as each individ¬ 
ual enjoys naturali opportunities and has to com¬ 
pete with only natural persons no one can justly 
complain of another’s success since each enjoys all 
his natural rights and no one has the uiqust ad- 




76 GOVERNMENT. 

vantage of privilege. Such competition, however, 
can not exist under prevailing laws, nor would the 
adoption of a just system of taxation and land ten¬ 
ure alone wholly restore it. As long as the State 
continues to create and protect those artificial per¬ 
sons called corporations, so long will natural per¬ 
sons be deprived of the benefits of natural compe¬ 
tition because compelled to compete with persons 
unnaturally and excessively strong and powerful. 

To illustrate some of the inevitable results of 
granting corporate power, conceive of a country in 
which such power had never been granted where 
there are hundreds of individuals and firms en¬ 
gaged in some particular branch of industry em¬ 
ploying thousands of workmen, the amount of cap¬ 
ital invested by each ranging from hundreds to 
thousands of dollars. Some of the larger concerns 
will not unnaturally endeavor undersell and drive 
out the smaller, but the great number of competi¬ 
tors with their varied and conflicting interests de¬ 
feat such attempt, and all succeed in making a liv¬ 
ing profit. No one firm can afford to sink the 
money necessary to drive out the rest without 
great risk of weakening itself and becoming a prey 
to similar attacks from others, and so, left to natur¬ 
al conditions and relations, the stronger are com¬ 
pelled to submit to the spirited competition of the 


GOVERNMENT'. 


77 

weaker. Individuals may indeed combine, forming 
a gigantic partnership with much capital and the 
intention to undersell and drive out the rest, but 
such an undertaking is, under natural conditions, 
too full of uncertainty and danger, capital is timid; 
a large number of partners each having a voice in 
the management of the business can seldom work 
together harmoniously for any great length of 
time; there is lack of the oneness of design and 
unity of action necessary to success; the interrup 
tions, changes and delays arising from deaths in 
' the firm and from other causes become more fre¬ 
quent as the number of its members increases; 
these considerations, and above all the liability of 
each member for all the debts and obligations of 
the firm, tend to deter the strong and protect the 
weak from such piratical enterprises. 

Let the State, however, permit and enable 
these enterprising individuals to invest as much of 
their own capital as they may choose torisk,togeth¬ 
er with whatever they can induce others to invest, 
in a venture wherein they shall be legally liable 
each only for the amount he invests, no matter how 
deeply the concern may become indebted to others, 
each man’s interest in the business being repre¬ 
sented by certificates of stock which can be shifted 
from hand to hand without interfering with the 





-8 GOVERNMENT 

Steady, uninterrupted prosecution of the business, 
the management of which is entrusted to agents 
whose employment and salaries depend upon their 
making the enterprise pay, and these favored indl 
viduals relieved of nature's wise limitations to 
the gratification of human greed, not as natural 
persons bui as an artificial person, with vastly 
larger capital than could be accumulated or wielded 
by natural persons, are enabled to undersell their 
less powerful competitors and can afford to sink 
money in driving one after another from the held 
until at last, by virtue of the aid of civil power, 
they have a complete monopoly of the business. 
The corporation may seem to have lost money; it 
pays no dividends and its stock is below par; out¬ 
siders who have been induced to purchase are wil¬ 
ling to sell their shares and the insiders, the pro¬ 
moters of the scheme, with feigned reluctance buy 
them at a discount, well knowing that every share 
is really worth more than par, since by reason of 
the acquired monopoly and power to fix prices 
without fear of competition the concern will pay 
the largest dividends. 

The above is but an imperfect illustration of 
what has taken place and is still going on in every 
town in the United States. Small capitalists have 
been and are being compelled to abandon all at- 


GOVERNMENT. 79 

tempts to use and manage their capital in the em¬ 
ployment of labor and the prosecution of indi¬ 
vidual or partnership enterprises, their only oppor¬ 
tunity being to invest it in corporate enterprises 
with fair prospect of an early ^^freeze out/’ The 
majority of men are by this, the unwarranted ac¬ 
tion of the State, deprived of natural opportuni¬ 
ties for making use of their capital and forced to 
compete with capital vastly aggregated by reason 
of privilege and controlled by artificial persons too 
powerful to be successfully withstood. And what 
is the natural, inevitable effect upon labor and 
wages? Before the corporation was created the 
hundreds or competing manufacturers in the com- 
munity afforded a natural market for labor in that 
particular line of industry. If one engaged at 
such labor were dissatisfied with or discharged by 
his employer he could generally find another at 
slightly reduced if not equal or better wages. The 
large number of employers, their varied circum 
stances and tastes, some preferring small profits 
and happy, hopeful workmen to large profits and 
underpaicT, discontented laborers, would prevent 
successful combination to arbitrarily fix the rate of 
wages, which would be left to the adjustment of 
natural conditions of supply and demand. But 
with the establishment and success of the corpora- 




8 o GOVERNMENT. 

tion, there comes a change; there is now but one 
employer, the superintendent of the monopoly; la¬ 
borers must work for him or quit that line of in¬ 
dustry, and must accept such wages as he decides 
to offer; they may seek some other community in 
which to ply their craft or trade, but will find thaU 
the corporation has .preceded them, controlled it 
may be by the same specially favored and pro¬ 
tected capitalists from whom they have fled, or 
combining with them in the effort to reduce wages 
to the lowest possible rate. There is no longer 
any market for that branch of labor. There is 
practically but one buyer. There is no freedom of 
contract. The laborer must accept what the com¬ 
bined corporations offer and when they offer it, or 
starve. He acts under a compulsion arising not 
from natural conditions but enforced by the strong, 
stupid hand of government in violation of every 
principle upon which its power can be justly 
evoked, a hand stretched forth to secure no right, 
to perform no public service, to promote no worthy 
end, but simply to aid those already the best able 
to help themselves in doing that which they could 
not otherwise do, to the incalculable injury of other 
men. 

It may be urged that dissatisfied workmen can 
seek some other occupation or branch of industry, 
to which it is to be answered first, that the State 


GOVERNMENT. 


Sr 


has no right to make it necessary for them to do 
I so, and, secondly, that all occupations and branches 
of industry are being seized and monopolized in the 
same way, and the great majority of employers 
driven into the overcrowded ranks of those seek¬ 
ing employment. Well merited public indignation 
: has of late been directed to gigantic trusts and 
their arbitrary control ot the output and prices ot 
various commodities These so-called trusts are 
but the natural and inevitable result of corporate 
power and privilege without which they could not 
exist, and the most injurious, iniquitous and de- 
[ moralizing of them all is the labor trust which has 
1 existed longer than any other and will continue as 
I long as private corporations are permitted to exist. 
I It has been seen that under certain circum¬ 

stances the laborer may have a right to demand 
that the State shall provide him with remunerative 
employment, that is, when government has by its 
unwarranted action interferred with some of his 
labor rights, but it has yet to be seen that the cap¬ 
italist ever has any just ground for asking the State 
to do aught to render his capital more remunera¬ 
tive, or to provide opportunities for its investment. 
It can not be denied that corporations are formed 
in the interest oi capital for the purpose of increas¬ 
ing its power. The power ot capital is, however, 






82 


GOVERNMENT. 


but the power of individuals who will, not unnatur¬ 
ally, use it for the still further increase of their 
power and for the control of other men. The way 
in which they use it, crushing the competing enter¬ 
prise of individual capital and destroying the labor 
market together with all freedom of contract for 
the sale of labor or its products, has been already 
faintly illustrated. When analyzed an ordinary 
private corporation is seen to be a combination of 
individuals who, having been so much more suc¬ 
cessful or fortunate than their fellows as to possess 
or control greater wealth and to that extent be 
better able to contend in the struggle for more, 
have received from the government as a special 
favor still greater power of competition which they 
may legally use, not simply to their own advance¬ 
ment but to the positive injury^ of others, and in 
such a way as to be relieved of any possible incon¬ 
venience that might arise from those natural sym¬ 
pathies and compunctions which sometimes restrain 
natural persons from using their power to the in¬ 
jury of others. 

But it is not alone through the exercise of 
their power to monopolize the use of capital and to 
tyrannyze over labor that corporations are detri¬ 
mental to individuals and the State. They have a 
most predominant and corrupting power over the 


GOVERNMENT. 


83 


I 


action of city councils, of State legislatures and of 
Congress, while courts and executive officers can 
not fail to be more^or less subject to their baneful 
influence. Public affairs, municipal, state and na 
tional, are to-day controlled not by the natural per¬ 
sons constituting the State, but by the artificial 
persons created by it. 

One of the most injurious results of granting- 
corporate power is the practical destruction of real 
freedom of the press. The journalist no longer 
expresses his honestly conceived opinions, but is 
compelled to write at the dictation of those whom 
the State enables to monopolize the metropolitan 
newspaper and even to say what news shall be 
published and whatnot. Intelligent public opinion 
is impossible without an independent press, which 
is impossible without the independent editor. 

Stock gambling, withdrawing so much of the 
energy and capital of the country from useful in¬ 
vestment to be squandered in speculations product¬ 
ive only of financial insecurity and general distaste 
for legitimate pursuits, is another wholly evil re 
suit of corporations. There is hardly a feature of 
corporate influence that is not hostile to society in 
general. The State has at all times found difficul¬ 
ty enough in compelling the obedience of natural 
persons. What reason is there for presuming that 
the vastly more powerful but no less ambitious 




S4 GOVERNMENT. 

artificial persons of its own unwarranted creation 
will be any more easily controlled? 

It must be admitted that the grant of corpor¬ 
ate power for the prosecution of ordinary business 
pursuits is foreign to any legitimate function of 
government, and a flagrant abuse of its power. 
The excuse generally offered for incorporat¬ 
ing private companies is that the public in¬ 
terest demands the prosecution of many enter¬ 
prises too great for unaided individual effort and 
capital. It is well to guard against too ready con¬ 
cession that any proposed enterprise is so neces¬ 
sary to the public welfare as to warrant its promo¬ 
tion by the government, but when so necessary it 
becomes, as already seen, the proper business of 
the government itself, and should not be farmed 
out to private persons, either natural or artificial. 

Private corporations are an unnecessary, un¬ 
mitigated and inexcusable evil whose removal is 
demanded in the interest of labor, of property, of 
liberty and of good government. No more of 
them should be formed, while those already in ex¬ 
istence should be shown no favors but treated with 
a rigorous justice in view of their natural tendency 
and unnatural power to monopolize the opportuni¬ 
ties for and the products of industry, and to cor¬ 
rupt and control the government. Such as have 


GOVERNMENT. 


85 

been formed for the prosecution of ordinary busi¬ 
ness enterprises should receive every encourage¬ 
ment to dissolve into natural persons, while under¬ 
takings too great for unaided individual or part¬ 
nership management and yet necessary to the com¬ 
mon good, for instance, railroads, telegraphs and 
other natural monopolies, should gradually pass 
under the control of the State. 

The only serious objection to government con¬ 
trol of such necessary monopolies is that it would 
greatly increase the number of public servants and 
the power of government patronage. Like objec¬ 
tion might be made, however, to any and all pub¬ 
lic servants and patronage with which it would be 
well to dispense altogether if the necessary gov¬ 
ernment could be maintained without them. The 
State has, however, certain plain duties to perform; 
there is a direct and rational method of performing 
them, nor will they ever be efficiently and equita¬ 
bly discharged in any other way. There ar^ 
necessary burdens, inevitable evils incident to the 
exercise of civil power^ but they can mot be less¬ 
ened by the abuse of that power nor by shirking 
any of the responsibilities of its exercise. There 
can be "no more danger in the State’s controlling 
the power and patronage incident to the manage¬ 
ment of any great enterprise than there is in per- 


GOVERNMENT. 


86 

mitting' a private corporation to control them. 
When governments shall learn that there is noth¬ 
ing which they can rightfully grant or barter away; 
when they shall have no interests to consult except 
the common public weal, nor any persons to deal 
with except natural ones, the evils to be appre¬ 
hended from the control of public patronage will 
be greatly diminished; and it might be well even 
then on general principles to provide that no pub¬ 
lic servant or office holder shall vote during the 
term of his service, a prohibition in which there 
would be no hardship, since no man is compelled 
to accept official position. ^ Certain it is that the • 
evils to be reasonably apprehended from govern¬ 
ment ownership and control of the limited number 
of necessary enterprises exceeding the compass of 
unaided private effort and capital could not com¬ 
pare with those already suffered by reason of the 
almost complete substitution of artificial for natural 
persons in the use and control of productive capi¬ 
tal, and even of the government itself. 


GOVERNl'^^NT. 


87 


CHAPTER VI. 

A LEGAL TENDER CURRENCY SHOULD BE PURE 

MONEY ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT ONLY.- 

WHAT IS PURE MONEY? 

Following the same rule and principle of 
action, that of minding its own business, the govern¬ 
ment should itself directly and without the inter¬ 
vention or aid of corporations do whatever, if any¬ 
thing, necessary to be done in regard to the issue 
and control of a legalized circulating medium of 
exchange. What that medium should be is a 
question upon which men may honestly differ for 
a time, but there can be no serious question as to 
the folly and injustice of enabling certain privileged 
private persons to exercise greater power for con¬ 
trolling or influencing the national currency than 
can be exercised by other persons, and the 
first duty of the State as regards currency leg¬ 
islation is to assume absolute control of the whole 
matter, in so far as it is a subject proper for legis¬ 
lative action. If there be any business usually 
transacted by banking corporations which is neces- 


GOVERNMENT. 

sary to the public welfare and can not be carried 
on by unaided private enterprise, it should also be 
conducted by the State. 

In attempting to solve the money problem 
which is very generally believed to be intimately 
connected with the problem of labor, and in fact 
with almost every government problem, reference 
must be had as in every case to the functions of 
government with a view to discovering how and to 
what extent, if at all, the State is properly charged 
with its solution. The right of contract contem¬ 
plates the freedom to exchange commodities or ser¬ 
vices one for another. A transaction of this kind 
is termed barter, the object of the parties being to 
dispose of something less desired for something 
more desired. For instance, one having meat more 
than he desires to use, exchanges it for bread which 
he wants, or finding no one willing to make such 
exchange, for something which he thinks will be 
readily and generally received in exchange for bread, 
and which he accept as a medium for effecting the 
exchange which he really wishes to make. Differ¬ 
ent commodities have from time to time come to be 
conveniently and generally used as such medium, 
as gold and silver are at the present time used. 
There can be no just warrant, however, for the 
State s adopting and enforcing the use of any par¬ 
ticular medium however convenient, unless its ac- 


GOVERNMENT. ^ 

don in that regard be necessary to the maintenance 
Oi the government, the preservation of the peace, 
or to the securing of some natural right. It is 
said that a medium of exchange facilitates barter 
and promotes industry and prosperity, which is 
doubtless true, but it is by no means necessary to 
the preservation of the peace nor to the securing 
of rights that the government should provide such 
medium or declare what it shall be, for men 
might well be left to make use of whatever such 
medium they found most convenient and accept¬ 
able, no one being bound to accept any. That 
contracts might be made the performance of which 
the State would be unable to enforce, would be no 
fault of the State whose duty it is to secure natural 
rights and not to create artificial ones, and it is a 
serious question whether a legal tender money, at 
least any that has yet been devised, is not on the 
whole as much of an injury as a benefit, in so far 
as it has any direct influence upon society. 

The necessity for government money, a legal 
tender currency, if there be such necessity, arises 
from the impossiblity of carrying on the exchanges 
necessary to be made between the State and indi¬ 
viduals by means of ordinary barter. In order to 
maintain its power and perform its other functions, 
the State must call upon individuals for commodi¬ 
ties and services for which it must, in justice, 


90 


GOVERNMENT. 


repay them value for value; to provide for such 
payment it must collect from each of the peo¬ 
ple whatever share of the public revenue may be 
due from him, that depending as already seen up¬ 
on the value of advantages which he is by the 
State enabled to enjoy over those having no ad¬ 
vantage. It is clear that all this paying for ser¬ 
vices and commodities furnished the State by a 
comparative few of the people, and this collecting 
of revenues from the many, can not be effected 
through the direct exchange of commodites and 
services between individuals and the State, that is, 
through barter. In place of ordinary barter the 
State resorts to the same device as that adopted 
by individuals in dealing with each other, some 
medium of exchange which shall be accepted by 
individuals in exchange for services and commodi¬ 
ties they may furnish the State, and also by the 
State from individuals in payment of their respect¬ 
ive shares of the public revenue. In order, more 
over, that this medium may be the more readily 
received by individuals in exchange for whatever it 
may desire to purchase from them, the State pro 
vides that this medium shall also be receivable 
by all persons within its jurisdiction in payment for 
any and all dues public and private, that is, makes 
it a legal tender. 


GOVERNMENT. 91 

It is clearly the duty of the State, in assuming 
to enforce the use and acceptance of any particu¬ 
lar medium of exchange, to privide one that shall 
work as little injury as possible to anybody. In 
this, as in every case of interference by the State, 
it should be remembered that every act of gov¬ 
ernment of special advantage to any person or 
persons results in corresponding disadvantage and 
injury to others. For instance, to make any par¬ 
ticular commodity the legalized medium of ex¬ 
change is an advantage to those possessing such 
commodity or having superior facilities for acquir¬ 
ing or controlling it, and a corresponding disad¬ 
vantage to others. It is an interference with the 
natural relations existing among men, a creation of 
new conditions, rendering some men more able to 
compete with the rest than they would otherwise 
be. It moreover injures the creditor or debtor in 
contracts for deferred payment, and also the pos¬ 
sessor of such legal tender on the one hand, or of 
commodities on the other hand, for it to be so 
constituted that its unit shall materially change, 
that is, either depreciate or appreciate in purchas¬ 
ing power. If it appreciates, the debtor is forced 
to pay more than his contract originally called for, 
and prices fall thereby discouraging productive 
industry to the injury of all save those controlling 
the money. If it depreciates the creditor loses, and 



92 


GOVERNMENT. 


prices have an artificial and injurious tendency to 
rise. 

In seeking to discover an equitable medium of 
exchange it may be well to examine somewhat 
closely into the difference between barter and sale. 
The latter differs from the former in that it always 
consists in the exchange of a commodity or service 
not for some other, but for that which will be gen¬ 
erally received in exchange for any and all com¬ 
modities and services, and which is called money. 
A pure sale can not be made without pure money. 
Whenever the medium of exchange has any com¬ 
modity value the transaction partakes of the nature 
of barter, and it may be questioned whether it is 
not whoil^y barter, the so-called money being mere¬ 
ly a commodity, having its natural commodity 
value enhanced by the demand for its use as such 
medium. 

Pure money is the evidence of a half-com¬ 
pleted barter^ indicating the value of the commodi¬ 
ty or service in exchange or payment for which it 
was taken and having some characteristic render¬ 
ing it receivable generally in payment for other 
commodities and services of like value. The 
promissory note of some well known person of un¬ 
doubted wealth and integrity, payable in some 
(renerally recognized medium of exchange would 


GOVERNMENT. 


93 


perhaps come as near being pure money as possi- 
sible without the aid of government, passing from 
hand to hand in exchanges made by persons having 
confidence that it would be paid when presented to 
the maker. But for the goverilment to compel its 
acceptance as money would clearly be to the ad¬ 
vantage of the maker and to. the disadvantage of 
others less favored, as in the case of bank currency. 

Since a pure legal tender money should con 
sist of evidence that its holder has parted with the 
value indicated, and should also guarantee to him 
that it will be received in exchange for commodi¬ 
ties or services as readily at least as whatever he 
parted with would have been received, and since it 
can not be pure money and consist of anything 
having a commodity value, it must of necessity re¬ 
sult from some incomplete or half-barter, from 
furnishing some service or commodity to some per¬ 
son having the power to provide the evidence of 
value received and also that such evidence shall be 
received and accepted by each and all in exchange 
an4 payment for commodities and services. It is 
clear that the State is the only power that can 
justly compel all to receive its notes or due bills in 
payment of debts, and that it may well do this will 
appear from a simple illustration. It employs 
some individual to render the government some 


94 


GOVERNMENT. 


service in ackiiowedgment for which it gives him 
a memorandum as evidence of value due him from 
the State, coupled with an order that such memo¬ 
randum and order shall be received by each and 
every person constituting the State in payment of 
all debts due them, and also by the State in pay¬ 
ment of all obligations to it. It is an order by the 
whole people on the whole people, binding them 
collectively and individually to pay for value re¬ 
ceived by them in their corporate capacity but for 
their individual benefit. The particular memoran¬ 
dum or piece of money has its origin in a barter 
begun with the furnishing of some commodity or 
service by some one or more of the people, to 
all the people, and completed when it is received 
back by the latter in payment for some service ren¬ 
dered by the State to the individual surrendering it. 
The piece of money may meanwhile have been the 
medium of many exchanges between individuals. 
It is pure money having no possible use except as 
money and no value except as money.^ Its use¬ 
fulness can not be affected by the rise or fall of any 
commodity, nor its value disturbed by anything 
short of the destruction of the government itself. 

A piece of such money would naturally con¬ 
sist of a paper memorandum of the facts constitut¬ 
ing it money. Whenever it came back into the 


GOVERNMENT. 95 

hands of the State it could be again paid out for 
value, and would continue to perform its proper 
and only function as long as demanded by the ne¬ 
cessities of the State. The amount or volume of 
such a currency Vv^ould be measured by and limited 
to the expenses and revenues of the government, 
a safer^ more rational and reliable limit than that 
afforded by the product of any metal or other com¬ 
modity, or by the best judgment of all the legisla¬ 
tors or bankers in the world. Such a currency, 
although consisting of paper, should not be con¬ 
founded with so-called paper money evidencing the 
promise to pay some particular metal or commod¬ 
ity, and depending for its stability and soundness 
upon the promisor’s ability to make the agreed 
payment. The strongest government may at times 
be unable to make such promises good, but never 
to itself accept and to compel its subjects to accept 
its and their orders upon itself and them in pay¬ 
ment of debts due to it and them. 

It may not be out of place to suggest a method 
by which such a currency could be adopted without 
doing greater violence to existing conditions than 
is incident to any great necessary reform. Let the 
government provide that on and after some specified 
date, the only legal tender money or legalized 
currency of the country shall be of the character 




96 GOVERNMENT. 

outlined above; that all money now in circulation 
shall be received by the government in exchange 
for the new money, dollar for dollar, whether of pa¬ 
per or metal. The amount issued by such exchange 
would be increased if necessary, by paying it out 
for commodities and services furnished the gov¬ 
ernment until the amount in circulation was suf¬ 
ficient to accomodate the annual collection of the 
public revenue and the payment of government 
expenses. The final register and regulator of the 
volume of currency wouM probably be the annual 
rental value of the lands of the country. 

Objection may be made to the method 
suggested on the ground that holders of gold 
or silver coin might decline to surrender it for 
the pure paper money. Their action would 
simply render it necessary to issue a larger 
amount in direct payment for commodities and 
services. The holders of coin could make such 
use or disposition of it as pleased them best. 
It is clear that it would not increase in value 
by reason of the change. It could not fail to be¬ 
come cheaper by reason of the less demand for it, 
so that individuals and the government could more 
readily and at less cost secure it for the liquidation 
of obligations payable in coin. It would, however, 
no doubt continue to be a very common medium 


GOVERNMENT. 


97 


of exchange and favorite subject of barter, but it 
would never enter into a sale except as a com • 
modity bought and sold for paper or pure money 
in the same manner as other commodities. 

Objection may also be made that such a money 
would not serve the purposes of foreign trade, that 
it would not be an international currency. It would 
not, nor will any money the government can cre¬ 
ate. The money established by a State is such 
only within the jurisdiction of that State. It is but 
the exercise of the State’s power, a part of the 
law of the State which can and should be of force 
only within its jurisdiction. The legitimate func¬ 
tion of the legalized money of a country has prop¬ 
erly no more to do with other countries chan have 
its land laws or those enacted for the preservation 
of the peace. Gold is used in the settlement cf 
balances in foreign trade not because it is legal 
money, but because a convenient and generally 
recognized and accepted medium of exchange. It 
would probably continue to be so used after the 
adoption of a pure legal tender money, and it 
mio-ht be well for the State in the exercise of its 
peace and right preserving functions to provide for 
the coinage of gold and silver as it does for the 
weighing and measuring of other commodities. 
The coins would serve as readily as now all the 


GOVERNMENT. 


98 

purposes of foreign trade, as well as for the pay 
ment of obligations binding the government or in¬ 
dividuals to pay coin. If from any unforeseen 
cause the government should be unable to purchase 
sufficient coin to meet its outstanding coin obliga¬ 
tions, it could as in other cases of necessity exer¬ 
cise its right of eminent domain, take possession of 
gold and silver bearing lands, develop the mines 
and pay out its own gold and silver. 

There is no principle of government warrant¬ 
ing the attempt to establish an international money, 
the only object of such attempt being to facilitate 
certain branches of industry, to render special aid 
to particular capital, an object foreign to any legiti¬ 
mate function of government. If a man desires to 
engage in foreign trade or to travel abroad and 
finds .that gold or silver is necessary to the accom 
plishment of his purpose, let him purchase them as 
he does any other needed commodity. Let the 
government confine its efforts and the exercise of 
the power with which it is entrusted to the preser 
vation of rights. Let it cease to create privileges 
whose existence is always destructive of rights or 
rather of their equal enjoyment. 

The adoption of a pure or scientific money 
will doubtless, like that of most other great reforms, 




GOVERNMENT. 


99 


be somewhat gradual, the government meanwhile 
endeavoring to decide upon and adopt the least in¬ 
jurious method of maintaining so-called metallic 
money. What metal or metals should be used, 
whether gold or silver or both, can be decided 
upon no strictly governmental principle, since there 
is no principle of government warranting the es¬ 
tablishment of a metallic legal tender The ques¬ 
tion is not altogether unlike one that might arise 
as to different systems of slavery no one of which 
could be founded on any just principle, but one of 
which might be less burdensome than another, 
less injurious to both master and slave, and less 
dangerous to the stability of the State. A gov¬ 
ernment which might not be able to abolish slavery 
at once would certainly be inexcusable if it failed 
to do all in its power to prevent its extension and 
to reduce its hardships and evil effects to a mini¬ 
mum. a purpose which should also control legisla¬ 
tive action in regard to making silver and gold a 
legal tender There is no good reasori, however, 
why any paper currency deemed necessary to sup¬ 
plement coin should not be pure money issued by 
the government in payment for services and com¬ 
modities and receivable in paymeiat as a full legal 


lOO 


GOVERNMENT. 


tender for all debts public and private. By the 
gradual introduction of such a money in place of 
all other forms of paper currency and the abolition 
of all banks of issue, the government could greatly 
facilitate solution of the currency problem. 


GOVERNMENT. 


lOL 


CHAPTER VIE 

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD APPLICABLE TO THE SO¬ 
LUTION OF ALL POLinCAL PROBLEMS.-THE 

TARIFF,-WOMAN SUFFRAGE, ET CETERA. 

The method pursued in examining the forego¬ 
ing subjects and laws is equally applicable and 
necessary to the solution of every question the cit¬ 
izen has to answer, of every problem the State is 
called upon to solve. Patent laws, tariff laws, 
criminal laws, the questions of marriage and di¬ 
vorce, of woman suffrage, of popular education 
and of social progress should all be considered in 
the light of axiomatic principles and with references 
to the legitimate functions of government. 

Profitable attention might, doubtless, be given 
to patent laws which exert a potent influence upon 
industrial conditions. They are laws declaratory 
and preservative of certain real or fictitious prop¬ 
erty rights. If there be any natural property right 
in a discovery or an invention, it is proper that the- 
State in the discharge of its third, or right-preserv¬ 
ing function should provide for its protection. If 


102 


GOVERNMENT. 


on ihe other hand there be no such natural right, 
the creation of an artificial one is foreign to any 
legitimate function of government and an unwar¬ 
ranted and injurious interference with the equal en¬ 
joyment of natural rights. It is clear that any man 
has a natural right to make and utilize whatever 
discoveries or inventions he can, but not so clear 
that other men have not a right to repeat the par¬ 
ticular discovery or invention or even to utilize it, 
although not made by them. The importance of 
this subject is suggested by frequent complaints of 
the injurious effects of labor saving machinery upon 
the market for manual labor and the rate of wages. 
Thousands of men are engaged in some branch of 
industry; a machine is invented, the introduction 
of which into general use will throw them out of 
employment. Such a change, if occurring natur¬ 
ally, that is, without the interference or aid of gov¬ 
ernment, would be one to which men should ac¬ 
commodate themselves as best they could. In the 
natural order of things the machine would be grad¬ 
ually brought into general but not monopolistic 
use, the laborers, some of them becoming manu¬ 
facturers, owners and operators of it, while others 
would with less precipitation and greater success 
seek other and different employment. The gov¬ 
ernment steps in, however, and makes it possible 


GOVERNMENT. 


103. 

and profitable foi particularly favored capital to at 
once monopolize the use of the machine and with 
it the particular industry. The evil results are of 
course aggravated by reason of the fact that the 
patents generally come to be controlled by private 
corporations, but it is a serious question whether 
the issue of the patent is not itself an abuse of civil 
power. It may be argued that patents encourage 
inventions of great benefit to society, which may 
be true, and yet few will contend that the State 
could justly appropriate the millions of a Vander¬ 
bilt or Astor to the promotion of discovery and in¬ 
vention, no matter how beneficial such appropria¬ 
tion might be, nor can it with greater justice inter¬ 
fere for such purpose with any natural right or 
opportunity of any man. There was a time when 
men stood upon the shores of lake and stream 
angling for fish. At length one invented a boat, 
finding thereby deeper water and better fishing. 
Had he or the community any right to prevent 
other men from using, making or selling boats?: 
Another thought of the mast and sail. Could he 
by right prevent others from making use of the 
same contrivance? And so with every invention 
that man may make, what natural right has he to 
prevent another from using it? The latter might 
have produced it a week or a day later, although 


GOVERNMENT. 


104 

the former had never been born. That the so- 
called rights protected by patent are not natural is 
admitted in that the government assumes to secure 
them for only a limited term. Why should the 
life of a patent be fourteen rather than forty or 
four hundred years if its object is to secure a 
natural right? Patent rights are privileges which 
the State has no legitimate authority to grant. Of 
ttie thousands that spend their lives in efforts at 
discovery and invention how few succeed, and of 
those succeeding how few themselves reap the re¬ 
ward that government assumes to provide. The 
inventor will invent as the poet sings orthe painter 
paints, because impelled by his genius. If he is 
to receive other than his natural reward, let it be 
given to him directly by the State, by the people, 
and let all the people share equally and at once in 
the benefit of his discovery. 

The question of the tariff is to be considered 
with reference to the particular object for which it 
is to be imposed. If for revenue, its collection 
falls within the first or self-preserving function of 
the government. But as already seen the fund 
arising from the rental value of land or valuable 
natural opportunities should be applied to the pay¬ 
ment of public expenses, nor should resort be had 
to any other mode of taxation until such fund is so 


GOVERNMENT. 


105 

applied and exhausted. Discussion of prevailing^ 
methods of taxation is but a paradoxical attempt 
to discover the right way of doing a wrong thing. 
In considering a protective tariff inquiry should be 
made as to whether the protection is intended for 
the State or for individuals. If for the State^ the 
imposition of the tariff will fall under the first gov¬ 
ernmental function, but if for individuals, under the 
third function. It is possible that the safety of the 
State may at times require the development of cer¬ 
tain industries, for instance, the production of 
something necessary to defensive warfare for the 
supply of which it would not do to depend upon 
possible enemies. It is clear, however, that pro¬ 
vision for such emergency should be made by the 
State itself directly in the discharge of its fourth 
or public serving function; that is, if individuals 
could not profitably carry on the particular indus¬ 
try and its conduct was necessary to the public 
safety, the State would be interfering with no indi¬ 
vidual right, but rather performing a legitimate and 
necessary public function by itself conducting the 
industry. Such method would certainly be more 
equitable than the indirect one of tariff protection. 
There are comparatively few instances of such ne¬ 
cessity. If the object be to protect individuals by 
mak-ng particular branches of industry profitable 
to manufacturers, the action of the State in that 


GOVERNMENT. 


to6 

regard is not only foreign to any legitimate func¬ 
tion but contrary to every correct principle of gov¬ 
ernment, since it is impossible to aid or benefit par¬ 
ticular persons or classes except at the expense 
and injury of others. No less unwarranted by 
fundamental principle is any attempt to provide 
^myloyment for labor through the imposition of a 
tariff, since the State has no right to do more for 
either labor or capital than to secure for each the 
enjoyment of natural opportunities and conditions 
for their employment. If by reason its neglect to 
secure such enjoyment the State has placed itself 
under any special obligation to labor, its duty is to 
restore such opportunities and conditions rather 
than to attempt to make compensation by further 
abuse of its power, still further interfering with 
the inalienable right of natural competition and 
aggravating the evils it seeks to remedy. 

The problem of crime involves the question as 
to what acts should be prohibited by the State, the 
answer to which is to be found by reference to the 
the functions of government. Acts directed to 
overthrow of the government must bs prevented 
by it in the discharge of its first or self-preserving 
function. They constitute the crime of treason. 
Those destructive of the peace are forbidden by vir¬ 
tue of the second, or peace preserving function, 


GOVERNMENT. 


107' 

while those interfering enjoyment of natural rights 
should be prohibited in the discharge of the third, or 
right-preserving function. The object in each in¬ 
stance should be to prevent or deter men from com¬ 
mitting the prohibited offense, and the penalties at 
tached should be directed solely to that end. Any 
punishment that needlessly adds to the disgrace ne¬ 
cessarily incident to the commission of an offense 
tends to increase rather than to diminish crime. 
Every effort should be made not only in justice to 
the offender but also in the interest of the public 
that his punishment may tend to render him less 
likely to offend again. He should be punished not 
to gratify the revenge of any whom he may have 
injured but to preserve the peace both now and 
and hereafter. The right of self-defense does not 
include the gratification of revenge, nor has an)' 
man the right to demand that the State, in assum¬ 
ing to defend, shall also avenge him. Superin¬ 
tendents and overseers of jails and penitentiaries 
should be selected with as much care as those 
placed in charge of schools and college,s, and with 
no less for their intelligence and humane in¬ 
tegrity. A* crying evil is that of too frequently 
treating those merely charged with crime as if al¬ 
ready proved to be guilty, and often in a manner 
too shameful for the deserts even of the most 


GOVERNMENT. 


io8 

guilty, The State has no right and can not afford 
to be unjust. When it shall have corrected its own 
abuses it will have greatly reduced the number of 
its criminals. It is too often responsible for the 
crime it is called upon to punish to warrant any ar¬ 
rogant, self-righteous exhibition of its sovereign 
power. 

The problem of marriage and divorce, so far 
at least as the government is concerned, is to be 
solved by determining what, if any, natural rights 
the problem involves, the enforcement of what may 
be the purely religious or moral obligations in¬ 
volved being wholly foreign to any legitimate func¬ 
tion of the State. 

The question of woman suffrage is to be 
viewed in connection with the first and third func¬ 
tions of government. The preservation of the 
State depends upon the manner in which its power 
is exercised. There can be no real wisdom not 
founded in justice. Since the State assumes to 
•control the conduct of all persons within its juris¬ 
diction, and since no individual nor set of individu¬ 
als has greater right than another to direct the use 
of its power^ and since the rights of each and all 
are reasonably presumed to be better protected 
when all have a voice in providing for such protec¬ 
tion than when it is left to a part to provide it, it 


GOVERNMENT. 


1 uy 

would seem but just that all whose rights may be 
concerned should have an equal voice in matters 
of government, women no less than men, Gov¬ 
ernment is but the incorporation of all persons into 
a body politic, warranted by the right of self-de¬ 
fense against disturbance of the peace. The right 
to effect such incorporation is peculiar to neither 
man nor woman, but arises from the right of self- 
defense which belongs to them both alike, and it 
would seem that the State in the discharge of its 
third, or right-preserving function should *at least 
not deny to woman the right to take part in the 
formation and conduct of such incorporation. The 
formation of an intelligent public opinion upon 
matters of government demands the most earnest 
and continued attention of the whole people, male 
and female, and it is not unlikely that if called 
upon to take a more active part in civic delibera¬ 
tions woman might do more towards promoting 
such an opinion. 

The question -of public education involves the 
inquiry whether it be necessary to the preservation 
of the State for it to provide for the education of 
its citizens. If not, then there can be no just war¬ 
rant for such education, since no man is by nature 
entitled to demand greater knowledge or better 
training than he can himself acquire through the 


no GOVERNMENT. 

enjoyment and exercise of the rights of life, liberty, 
property and contract. The primary object of 
public education, that is, at the expense of the 
public, should be to prepare all persons for the 
duties of intelligent citizenship; not to teach any 
particular theory of government, of politics, politi¬ 
cal economy or theology, but to develop the abili¬ 
ty for and the habit of independent and thorough 
investigation of all questions, especially those call¬ 
ing for political action. Graduates of public insti¬ 
tutions of learning should be too well educated to 
accept the conclusions of any teacher, school or 
party as final. No public school teacher, however 
learned, can be justified in presenting his own 
opinion on disputed questions without at the same 
time calling the student’s respectful attention to 
whatever opposite opinions may be held by others, 
and encouraging independent examination of all 
opinions and theories. Nor should any such 
teacher be criticised, much less discharged, for 
presenting for what they may be worth, the re¬ 
sults of his own or other men’s original investiga¬ 
tions in political or social science, no matter how 
contradictory of generally accepted theories. It 
is but a barbarous continuation of the tyranny that 
has characterized government from the beginning 
and greatly retarded its progress and that of the 
race, for it to encourage discoveries in the labora- 


GOVERNMENT. 


Ill 


tories of physical science, but to persecute who¬ 
ever shall presume to make them in the domain of 
ocial science. 

Whatever instruction the State may provide 
further than that necessary to intelligent citizenship, 
in manual training, for instance, is warranted only 
when the State assumes such control of the child’s 
time as to prevent the pareiit from providing such 
instruction. One fault of the public school system 
has been that pupils completing the prescribed 
course of study are deprived of the opportunity to 
learn trades and business habits by exclusive at¬ 
tendance upon school at the very time when they 
should also be acquiring the knowledge and habit 
of manual industry. Although it is not the duty of 
the State to teach trades or professions, it should 
do nothing to prevent or discourage their being 
learned. Whenever there shall be a scienc'b of 
government, instruction in public schools should 
be limited as far as practicable to the teaching of 
whatever would be necessary to the mastery of 
that science, their legitimate aim .being to send 
forth graduates proficient in the theory and prac¬ 
tice of the art of government. 

With the promotion of social progress govern¬ 
ment has properly nothing to do. It should re¬ 
form itself by ceasing its attemps to reform society. 


II2 


GOVERNMENT. 


lO 027 119 747 

It is responsible for only such social ills as arc 
caused by the misuse of its power. Instead of pre¬ 
scribing corrective medicines for the ills of society, 
it should preserve natural conditions always the 
most favorable to social as well as individual 
health, both physical and moral. 

The office of the State is not that of physician 
or teacher but rather that of policeman. When it 
shall efficiently discharge all its legitimate func¬ 
tions, the individual and society will enjoy the 
the liberty to make whatever advancement is to be 
reasonably expected from compliance with the im' 
mutable laws of God and nature. No government 
can improve upon those laws, nor should any at¬ 
tempt be made to do more than to secure to every 
individual the freedom to learn and obey them. 
Whenever that freedom shall be permanently en¬ 
joyed the healthful, natural progress of society will 
be assured, for every man will then be free to make 
use of all the opportunities provided by God and 
and nature for his own improvement and to utilize 
every worthy means and influence for the advance¬ 
ment of his fellow men. 

Almighty wisdom has not provided nor can 
government devise conditions more favorable to 
both the tern oral and the spiritual welfare of man¬ 
kind than those that will exist when the use of civil 
power shall be limited strictly to the efficient dis¬ 
charge of the four legitimate and only proper func¬ 
tions of government. 






